A house is not merely a person’s property, it represents memories, identity, history and link to the land, personal belongings, status and tradition. The Applicants found themselves overnight, roofless, homeless, humiliated and forced to find shelter under the trees or even deserted buildings with no hope of ever going back to their previous lives. In the Darfur case (supra), the Commission found Sudan in violation of the right to property for its failure to refrain, and protect victims, from eviction or demolition of their houses. In James and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98-B, p. 29, para. 37, the Court laid down the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property wherein it stated that deprivation of possessions must be subjected to certain conditions and emphasized the role of the Contracting States to amongst other things, control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. An interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. See Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 26, para. 69). It is therefore imperative to determine whether the deprivation of the Applicants’ property pursued a legitimate aim, in the public interest and in accordance with the law. In Media Rights Agenda, Constitutional Rights Project, v. Nigeria, communications 105/93, 128/94 and 130/94, the African Commission found that the sealing of the premises of two magazines violated the right to property under the African Charter. The African Commission stated that: The government did not offer any explanation for the sealing up of the premises of many publications. Those affected were not previously accused in a court of law, of any wrongdoing. The right to property necessarily includes a right to have access to property of one’s own and the right not for one’s property to be removed. The Decrees which enabled these premises to be sealed up and for publications to be seized cannot be said to be “appropriate” or in the interest of the public or the community in general. The Commission holds a violation of Article 14. In addition, the seizure of the magazines for reasons that have not been shown to be in the public need or interest also violates the right to property. 20