157. According to the Cater [sic!] Carter Land Commission Report: The legal position of the occupants of Kibera appears to be that they are tenants at will of the Crown and the tenancy is liable to termination by the Commissioner of Lands. On the other hand we cannot agree that they have no rights in equity. We consider that Government had a clear duty to these ex-askaris either to repatriate them or to find accommodation for them... In our judgment they ought not to be moved without receiving suitable land elsewhere and compensation for disturbance, and we consider that a similar obligation exists in respect of their widows, sons who are already householders at Kibera59 158. The Commission also recalls from the evidence that the option to repatriate the Nubians was abandoned by the colonial administration and they have since remained in Kibera for over a century as the undisputed inhabitants of the settlement.60 Over this period of time, they have formed inextricable links to the land which according to them constitutes the only homeland they have ever known and where they bury their dead. The dynamics in the settlement have over the years become more complex with the influx of other communities into the settlement and the systematic hiving off of the land by the State for development purposes. The Nubians have however remained the dominant community in Kibera, albeit with no land rights - a situation which is purportedly linked to the non-recognition of their Kenyan citizenship. 159. While the colonial authorities and the Kenyan Government have recognised a clear moral obligation to resettle the Nubians, the Kenyan Government has over the years maintained that Kibera is State land and that Nubians cannot therefore lay claim to the area as their homeland. Nubians and other occupants of kibera are therefore regarded as squatters on government land although they have been in occupation of the land for over a century. 160. The Commission observes that it cannot merely be said that the Nubians' possession of the land in Kibera was/is at the mercy of the Respondent State since the state itself clearly recognises a moral obligation to provide settlement for the Nubians. The Commission considers that the access/occupation and use rights granted by the Respondent State to the Nubians over kibera for over a century, is enough for them to request and obtain official recognition and registration of at least some of the land as their communal property. This imposes an obligation on the Kenyan Government to take all reasonable measures to provide security of tenure over lands which the Nubians occupy in Kibera. That the land question in Kenya in general and Kibera in particular is complex cannot be used as an excuse by the Respondent State to leave the Nubians of Kibera in such a precarious situation of insecurity and uncertainty, which encourages infringement on the rights of the community by the government and individuals. 161. The Complainants have also submitted that the lack of security of tenure over the land which the Nubians occupy, has given rise to their routine forced eviction from the Kibera settlement. According to them, these evictions have been carried out without adequate notice and no alternative land or compensation was offered to the Nubians. Apart from a blanket denial of the allegations, the Respondent State has not made any specific observations regarding this issue. 162. The Commission observes that forced evictions often lead to personal and collective trauma, resulting in the loss of livelihoods, the destruction of social networks and other devastating effects. Forced evictions dismantle what individuals and communities have built, sometimes over a long period of time, plunging families and communities into misery.61 163. To be constantly faced with the prospects of forced evictions, as is the case with the Nubians of Kibera, is one of the worst forms of injustices that individuals, families and communities can be exposed to. 164. While the Commission observes that Governments might under certain circumstances legitimately forcibly move people from their land or houses for a variety of reasons, it considers that any such measures must strictly adhere to international human rights standards in order to prevent unnecessary hardship and suffering. Some of these standards have been succinctly outlined in General Comment No 7 of the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights which provides as follow:62 21