208. In recent years, there have been considerable developments in international law with respect to the normative definition of the right to health, which includes both health care and healthy conditions. The right to health has been enshrined in numerous international and regional human rights instruments, including the African Charter. 209. In its General Comment No.14 on the right to health adopted in 2000, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sets out that, ‘the right to health extends not only to timely and appropriate health care but also to the underlying determinants of health, such as, access to safe and portable water, an adequate supply of safe food, nutrition, and housing…’. In terms of the General Comment, the right to health contains four elements: availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, and impose three types of obligations on States – to respect, fulfill and protect the right. In terms of the duty to protect, the State must ensure that third parties (non-state actors) do not infringe upon the enjoyment of the right to health. 210. Violations of the right to health can occur through the direct action of States or other entities insufficiently regulated by States. According to General Comment 14 ‘states should also refrain from unlawfully polluting air, water and soil, … during armed conflicts in violation of international humanitarian law… States should also ensure that third parties do not limit people's access to healthrelated information and services, and the failure to enact or enforce laws to prevent the pollution of water…[violates the right to health]’. 37 211. In its decision on Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v. Zaire the Commission held that the failure of the Government to provide basic services such as safe drinking water and electricity and the shortage of medicine … constitutes a violation of Article 16. 212. In the present communication, the destruction of homes, livestock and farms as well as the poisoning of water sources, such as wells exposed the victims to serious health risks and amounts to a violation of Article 16 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article Article 18.1 213. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 18.1, the Complainants argue that the destruction of homes and evictions of the victims constituted a violation of this sub-paragraph of Article 18. 18 (1) recognises that ‘[t]he family shall be the natural unit and basis of society’. It goes further to place a positive obligation on States, stating that ‘[t]he family shall be protected by the State which shall take care of its physical health and moral’. This provision thus establishes a prohibition on arbitrary or unlawful interference with the family. 214. In its General Comment No. 19, the Human Rights Committee stated that ‘ensuring the protection provided for under Article 23 of the Covenant requires that States parties should adopt legislative, administrative or other measures…’. Ensuring protection of the family also requires that States refrain from any action that will affect the family unit, including arbitrary separation of family members and involuntary displacement of families. In the Dogan case the European Court of Human Rights also held that the refusal of access to the applicants’ homes and livelihood constituted a serious and unjustified interference with the right to respect for family life and home. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention, which protects the right to family, similar to 18 (1) of the African Charter. 215. In Union inter africaine des droits de l’Homme, Fédération internationale des ligues des droits 38 de l’Homme and others v. Angola , the Commission found that massive forced expulsion [ whether in peace time or war time] of population has a negative effect on the enjoyment of the right to family. In that Communication, it was alleged that between April and September 1996, the Angolan government rounded up and expelled West African nationals from its territory. These expulsions were preceded by acts of brutality committed against Senegalese, Malian, Gambian, Mauritanian and other nationals. The victims lost their belongings, and in some cases, families were separated. The African Commission held that mass expulsions of any category of persons, whether on the basis of nationality, religion, ethnic, racial or other considerations "constitute a special violation of human rights". The Commission added that ‘by deporting the victims, thus separating some of them from their families, the Defendant State had violated and violates Article [ 18(1) of the Charter.