ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
and the ongoing housing crisis) paint am impending danger of homelessness
sufficient to invite the attention of the Cobrrussion. The Respondent State does
not disprove the living conditions of t,e Complainants, the claims of nonprovision of basic services and the risk of homelessness that the Complainants
face.
65. In the light of the requirement of preliminary proof and the arguments
presented, the Commission finds that the jfacts presented in the Communication
and the preliminary evidence supporting them (see Annexures B, C, D, El, E2,
E3 and E4 attached to the Complaint) sJfficientlY~;dilitU@33,.te
violations of one or
more of the provisions of the African C~arter rr(if-haV"";' ccurred (in this case,
Articles 5, 19 and 22 of the African Charter), ,,;
.
66. The Commission is of the view that, oJY~~3irriac ;;~ei "a· indication that
there is a violation of a right or ri~h~s'.~?Jote2f~~~~nd~~t~~ . ' ,;,,;tt:~arterby
the Respondent State. The deh:~rmll1atien wn~ther otR§~;i:;nghts nave been
violated or the extent to Whic~:;;jffi
.•
'.:'.e
...
y...ha~~be....
e..~:)riolated i~~~:O
...
J;.\~ylevant at this
stage because such an analysis:is1~r~9.uiredi0nl.y·at the Merits 5,r~;;rge.
To this end,
the Commission finds that the coirtml'9-,inJnts"fl~~ met the requirement to show
I
'.'
a prima facie violation p£i{theAfrican@B:arter. .:: :""
.~!"
'\F ....
;
67. Meanwhile, the iss)1f/c~~.in~i>'
:etll' """ not ~~ alleged violations have
been dealt with" by' the doii~~tic courts h~f;';.t1;:ie Respondent State will be
appropriatelydealt
with und~i;;tb~com!miss~~i{'s analysis of compliance with
Article 56(5), ft,irther below.
~ ~
't
"
<';-.,~"".,
\
'
68. Furthermore, \y~~{lout prejudice to it$yabove finding and for jurisprudential
pu:~~;p~e,with r~;~~e.~~eto the al.17~~tionlthat violatio~s of the p:ovisions of ~he
Afr:~~~.<:~E:~~
...
r...
t.er.. '.wOll:d~,~f~~~'.~::;lJ:Ythe
eVlen~o~ a derual of the nght. to housing
which ...WQ:u1d.be occasioned" by an eviction of the Complainants, the
~o1lll11.i~~ionJ~t;~j£}::~!ul
of and ali.gns i~.selfwith the be~t practices. of similar
mternahvlI,~.C}l:;b·odIes;~wNqh
entertain petitions on the baSIS of allegations of the
real risk df~!~eti~ioner~;xreings.ubjected to jhuman rights vio~ations. This posit~on
would be ~:tJ.- Iine WIth Articles 60 and 61 of the Afncan Charter, WhICh
encourage tli~tC9mmission to draw inspiration from international human rights
law.
·;r·{
I
69. As regards the requirement that the Cdmmunication must be addressed to a
State Party to the African Charter (ration1 personae), this, as demonstrated by the
established jurisprudence
of the Commission,
only requires-that
a
Communication be brought against al State party to the ~~~~r,
alleging violations for which the State Pa~ty is allegedly resp~'b~~
o~
I
~/~
~
III
70. Further on this point, the Commission wishes to note that !t~le
in its original format, listed the "Ekur 'uleni Metropolitan\¥
,c{.
'., ""6,
'\
he{~'
Iai ~
'cipalitr;
d 7-<"
A
-:;.
~O'
Q
~":J
'"
/~ag~, ~t)~,5t