Previous 5 / 52 Next

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility pleaded urgency of the Complaint based on a fire accident that occurred at the settlement which claimed two lives. 17. On 18 August 2009, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the request for oral hearing and informed the Complainant~ that their Complaint would be tabled before the 46th Ordinary Session of the <Commission for seizure, and only after such determination on seizure that parti~s could be invited to make written and oral submissions on the merits of the case. During its 46th Ordinary Session, the Commission examined the Complaint and decided to be seized of the matter. On 8 December 2009, the complainant~k were i~~r~e~,\ of the Commission's seizure decision. /,'/cr ""<: ~ \ 18. On 23 February 2010, the Secretariat rece vecffi:~o,,(,Pla~ts' submissions on the admissibility of the Communi~i!;~ .. 't~kh\:\'~,a§,:':ttafl~~i!ted to the Respondent State on 16 April 2010, f9 t<'" resp6~$t. ',;_"" "" ", ;,"':".'',' . ~_'.;" "i~j;;!i!~ "><"","">. -"' •.' 19. On 16 June 2010, the Respond?~t Sta nd th~'~~Complainqrl,!s,~ere informed that the Communication had'~iPe~!~>\I~efe re '1'i1e48th Ordi~J;1¥ Session of the Commission in November 2010, p~~~.ing the <,.,:;,9,pondent StatE?s submission on admissibility. The Resp$~~dent State"·fh, .• I also rEt?!> ted to make its submission :".", on admissibility befor~!'1!.8":4ugust2Q¥,,'. .' \<.:-:';',;h., 20. On 18 May 20J~::the"'~esp6 ,,_0- ,. tate an' "Jtf~~()mplainants were informed ~~: ~~:Ja~t~tl~ s~~::::io~e~!~~:~ltofr;l:'8~~P~~~~~Ia~~~2 t: i~:~;!~ I Ordinary Sess~or to be held from 9 f'" :",ctober 2012 in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire due to the 'i;bn-submission of ,,,.th espondent State's observations on Aclm,!ssibility. Th.~"l\e,spondent St~te \vas also informed that the Commission w011t~<\,,~~~~eed .5~n~; ,O~9inarYI Session to take a. decision on the admH~~,IlJlhtYQf the Communication based on the facts before It. '0,,'::\ ", <:!';i]~"ri,:J~'>! . I' 21. On 28 \~e}2;o/20i; . .~<t;. Secretariat re-sent to the Respondent State the Compla~rt~~t~' sub~~~fons, togeth~r w~th ~re:ious corres?o~~:nces·.fr~m the Secretariat \w,lth a request to enter Its submission on admissibility WIthin two '", " I months of t~~~1'r9ateof the notifica~ior' On 1 Aug~st. 2012, the Secretariat forwarded th~>almexures accompanymg the Communication to the Respondent State. On 13' August, the Secretariat I received a further request from the Respondent State for the annexures I to the Communication, which were required for preparing its submission 0 admissibility. : -.; . !--. ·~~.;~Jt~,- at .:~~~' 1 22. In November 2012, the Respondent SJate forwarded its First Sub:tP.issic;~',on Admissibility, which was transmitted tp the Complainants. The etrll~ant~<" forwarded their response on 28 Novemper 2012, which was also tr~s~~~CN:~ , the Respondent State on 30 November 2012. '{ ,(:!f)) ~ ~ . "l. . -~~A~ \).ul'I" Q tJ !;J "~f~~.§'J - ~< "x? .

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 377/09 - Menduzaki Patricia Monakali and others v. South Africa

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Adequate Standard of Living
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Economic, Social and Cultural Development
Education
Equality
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to Education

Case Head Notes: The Complainants live in Portion 41, in temporary shack dwellings on a property which is part of Roodekop Informal Settlement (RIS). They previously lived in Portion 40 of the RIS, where they experienced frequent flooding to the point that it was uninhabitable at some points of the year. They have complained to the appropriate authorities in South Africa regarding their homelessness, and requested that priority, and resources, be given to their needs, including alternative housing which they say should have already been built. The Complainants state that, in 2006, the owner of the Property, attempted to evict them in a Court proceeding. The Complainants submitted a counter-application against the municipality, praying that the muncipality had a constiutional and statutroy obligation to have a program in place to address their homeless situation by purchasing the property from the Trustees and giving adequate resources to the Complainants needs. Based on court documents, the High Court found that the municipality failed to put into action an appropriate emergency plan to address the plight of homelessness in RIS and ordered the Municipality to purchase the property and make provision for essential services for the occupiers. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Courts decision, and the Complainants' appeal to the Consitutional Court was unsuccessful. The Commission found no violation of Article 5, stating that the Respondent State cannot be held responsible for the poor conditions when the Complainants lived in Portion 40, because they did not authoritze the Complainants accomodation in the first place. Additionally, the Commission stated that there is no clear evidence that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 with respect to Portion 41 because there is no clear evidence that the Respondent State is not following due process to meet the demand for housing. Specifically, the Commission stated that there is no specific obligation for the Respondent State to address the housing and other problems of the Complainants within a timeline demanded by the Complainants. The Commission found no violation of Article 17 because there was no evidence that a violation of the right to education had actually occurred. The Commission found no violation of Article 18, but, regardless, it urged the Respondent State to address the Complainants housing issues. The Commission found no violation of Article 19 because they state that the information provided by the Complainants did not demonstrate that they are treated differently from others of similar conditions. The Commission found no violation of Article 22 because they stated that no evidence was advanced by the Complainants to demonstrate that the state is to blame for the Complainants deplorable socio-economic conditions. The Commission found no violation of Article 24 because, while they state that there is room for the Respondent State to improve its program in creating a healthy environment, the evidence does not support that the gaps in the Respondent State's efforts are to a level that meets the requirements for finding a violation of Article 24. Regardless, the Commission states that the Respondent State should make extra effort to adopt targeted measures to address the housing conditions of the effected community with urgency.

Country

South Africa

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 17: Right to Education
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 17: Right to Education
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Aug 13, 2009 ~ Aug 2, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -30.559482

Longitude: 22.937506

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): South Africa

Primary Documents

Menduzaki Patricia Monakali and Others v South Africa.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 377/09 - Menduzaki Patricia Monakali and others v. South Africa

Primary Documents

Notifications