One would want to ask whether the act of the Defendant is an administrative preventive measure or whether it is a punitive measure. If it is punitive, suffice to say that it must fulfil the domestic and international conditions proving that such an act was sanctioned by a judicial authority after fulfilling the requirement of fair trial and that it should be considered as a legitimate measure and not a cruel and inhuman act. This is not the position in the instant case as this position is clearly akin to a forced eviction. Forced eviction is the removal of individuals, families or communities from their homes, land or neighborhood, against their will, directly or indirectly attributable to the State. The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights considers forced evictions to be the “permanent or temporary removal against the will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.” Evictions and expropriations may be lawful when they are conducted in exceptional circumstances, and in full accordance with relevant provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law. Forced evictions are prohibited under international law. The Respondent has not proved that the demolition was done in accordance with the law, neither has it been proven to have been done in the overall interest of the public. Most importantly, the Respondent has failed to lead any evidence to prove any causal link that the property in question was used to harbor kidnap victims. The Respondent states that the Applicants’ are not entitled to recovery of any property or compensation and that they have not held the Applicants’ vicariously guilty neither were they punished for any purported offence. What better meaning could be given to the acts of the Respondent in the circumstance? The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has placed considerable emphasis on forced evictions and has asserted, in its General Comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing that “instances of forced eviction are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] and can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant principles of international law” In Centre for Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan Communication 296/2005 (29th July 2010) ACHR, the African Commission found violations of the right to property (Article14) of the African Charter on Human and 21