..;:- .... CHP African Commission on Human and Peoples' Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility lainants' claim on how they occupied were living."60This aligns with the the property. 211. The situation of the Complainants c:ppmlc: precarious. They have argued that if they are evicted from the property by owners, they have nowhere else to go and will, in the process, be rendered . That having entered upon the Property at the instance of the , the threat of homelessness they face is not being addressed with the that it deserves. bligations to fulfil the principles of margin of rights and 212.The Respondent State has argued that right to housing, the Commission must of appreciation, subsidiarity, pro proportionality. 213. The African Commission recalls its u",~a"'~',n with regard to the margin of subsidiarity. The Commission' competence and duty of the,', and peoples' rights within its 214. As a regional body, ' ' local courts in why the to impose remedies. interpreta better situated than the two principles in the Prince case to monitor and oversee the . While the doctrines of margin of the primary responsibility of States peoples' rights domestically, they do assist, supervise and insist upon of the African Charter where do not advocate for a hands-off on the mere assertation by the nrocecures meet more than the minimum U'-',>HJ.LL First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic Prince v South Africa (n 22 above) para 52. 62 Prince v South Africa (n 22 above) para 52. 63 Prince v South Africa (n 22 above) para 53. 60 61 South Africa para 5.29.