-"'.- ..
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Hiqhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
presence of mosquitoes caused diseasesi to spread quickly. Added to this, in
October 2004, three children from the Ro1oik9PInformal Settlement drowned in
the £lood due to heavy rains and the lack of critical infrastructure to handle the
storm waters on Portion 40.
110. The Complainants submitted that it is a yiolation of their dignity and humanity
under Article 22 to now face eviction bn Portion 41, after moving onto the
property with their shacks at the instaJce of the Municipality.st They argued
that it is no fault of theirs that they are i1' illegal occupation of the property and
currently facing eviction proceedings.
111. The Complainants submitted that in the face
e
proceedings against
them, they are currently in desperate !1;~e
~cco ,; odation and have
nowhere els~ to go to. T~ey do not ~Vf,retiily,\tav ~~:~~~,
" .,~?', d the~ liv~ .in
depl.orable circumstanc~s, m self c01J~r~:uEtedSR,fSfSWIt.,. m'.
);lC utility
services. The only service they hav,EnstHe.communal wa ',' :,pmts.
'.
,<f
-,'I~:\\
, '!'
'<:'~~:<['."'j;
112. The Complainants f~rther av~Pt(~]i~~att~~"~f~p.onde~t.state,·~~:i\fhe primary
duty bearer responsible for addresslJ.1g the hou~~l}gCrISISmusftake all
necessary measures to E;! '(,~urethat t~e:')' ~t altein~fi'Xe accommodation .
• ~~:'.
\~~i~:'~"-
M
B. Respondent State's ~!ibmisst ';
.~
'.,
~"
.~.
.
:~~,
- -v-,
.
"
c, ."
~(t~~:~~.'l.::·,d;'
113. The RespondentState submitteg.;~ft,pat,i consi~~ting the arguments in support
of its case, the, Commission mustjd~ft$ide the fbllowing four principles, namely:
the doctrine ofn:argin of appreciation?t~~~~finciple of subsidiarity, the principle of
progressive reali~a(~on of rights, and Ith~lfpfinciple of proportionality in relation to
the.rights alleged by the Complainants' to have been violated in this case.
'-:'\;~r]l':':>"',
-. :'\""
,',' ",
,,:{~,f
I
114. The "~~SR~.J..:lgent
State:,a1;'gu~ci·tJjatbased on the allegations of violations of the
Africcit~:,~ha'rt~t411efollowing' rights require the Commission's consideration, to
wit: th~\~tg~f:jJ~O'1i~g'~~~$~
~he right to *~man dignity .(Artic!e 5), the ri.ght to
educafIon;'(~rtIcle 12)~2~J!ie
right to protection of the family umt (18), the right of
peoples td;';~A.ualitya:t{d equal respect (~rtic1e 22), and the right to a general
satisfactory ''''"virorunent favourable to ieir development (Article 24). ..
.
'{" .:~,. ~':<'
115. The Respondent State submitted that, 9ased on the COmmISSIOn'SdeCISIOnin
Prince v Republic of South Africa,22 the Afnican Charter is informed bI the_margin
of appreciation. In considering the violations alleged by the Cq~-he"
margin of appreciation doctrine, the I Respondent State t~;:~ARii[ s
_________
21
---','--
I
Ihv; ~
iI i
App Iicants Response to Respon dent'ss Secon d Su b mrssion
"
on Ad'nussi'bili'ty ui<ged
I
paras 1.1.7.4.
22 (2004)
AHRLR 105 (ACHPR 2004), paras 50-51.
*,.
.'
U'1o~
M'a (~~3
'Cll~:<'r'
~~ ~--< \~
'-""'""
' '\',:a '6
'·A Ci. <;':,
',,~:"'6- ':70's/o
.:, o
p'u- up.
0
(Il,
0:: /)'
Q
17 t5J
\~~'O
s: '
\....
N A"RICI'
'Iv; {JY
'\', _, (. HOMME E"( Q"-'=' ~'
~~~..l!''''''''~~~~
Page 22 of 51
e