including in particular the right to use, sell, bequeath, mortgage and develop the land. The Complainant further submits that the violation has lasted for six years during which, despite having been duly informed of the situation, the State has not done anything to restore her rights and punish the persons responsible. 95. While acknowledging that any use in the interest of public need could justify what she considers as a de facto expropriation, the Complainant submits that the use in the public interest of such an expropriation has not been proven and that as such, there was a violation. Alleged violation of the right to adequate housing, a combined reading of Articles 14, 16 and 18 96. In the alternative, the Complainant claims a violation of the right to adequate housing by invoking the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 18 of the African Charter. In support of this claim, the Complainant argues that by allowing the destruction of the hut which was meant to provide shelter for her and her family, the Respondent State violated their right to family life. She further submits that in general, the right to shelter goes beyond the right to have a roof over one’s head to include the right to be left alone and to live in peace, whether under a roof or not. The Complainant contends that as a result of the repeated trespassing on the land, she was prevented from enjoying a peaceful family life. Respondent State’s Submissions on the Merits Alleged violation of Article 14 97. The Respondent State submits that the case brought by the Complainant before the Commission is about a dispute between individuals and to which the State is not a party. In support of this claim, the Respondent State argues that the inviolable nature of land certificates alleged by the Complainant is not absolute, since the relevant laws provide for situations where land registration can be questioned. Among other exceptions, the Respondent State cites cases of fraudulent land registration and the withdrawal of land certificates by the Minister of Land Tenure for administrative error or fraud by the land certificate holder. 98. The Respondent State submits that in order to obtain his own land certificate, the Complainant’s vendor resorted to fraud which is penalized on several accounts by the judicial and administrative authorities. The Respondent State 21