ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
will be among the persons to benefit from the housing once it has been
constructed.s?
129. The Respondent State submitted that while the administrative process to be
followed in the delivery of housing may seem overly cumbersome and time
consuming, the Municipality has no choice in the matter. It is a process that is
"required to ensure that all competing /interests (that of home seekers, the
Municipality and other citizens of South Africa) are accommodated. The
Government also argued that in accordknce with the doctrine of margin of
appreciation, South Africa is best placed to determine how to accommodate all
competing interest, and that the process Icurre,n;~lY'
cont~in:ed in South African
legislation has been approved by South Afric~n:ES>Rrts. \,:)
'<_, ::~":~':;>_
'~:i;l
130. The Respondent State also submitted
Mii:ri~~,~l(ai~'ty;~;nil~Jollowed
due
process under South African law aQ;r
ter'".l
assi~~it:!:g~the(Cqr,nBlainants.
And that the Complainants hav:e,~&ci"'~i%,:,;~,in
ba~(}faith or" ~b~sed due process
considering that at the time they·p.pproae.,·~W'tl}~t~ommissib:Q.,.theiMunicipality
was already implemented <:;6ngqi,ng
to address ':'vtI1~ir plight of
homelessness.
-.'.t',"
'.,'
~r'" s;/
131. The Respondent
p~~lit~0:~~~ase0" I' ~i'al Economic Rights and
Action Centre v ~~~~iflg"(SE~~. s~~e)
oft tr~i;;t;i~htt9ii ousi.n~ un~er the African
Charter d~es 1}f't>appl~~,t?thlS<CCl.~,~
becaufe the,fGl;ttsare distinguishable on .two
grounds: fIrs~~'y,no eviction order .has been made and, secondly, South African
la,: .provide~:'~\ap.pr. opriate prote,c.,'..t.l?·•.n rl.. i?r the Complaints against forced
eviction.v
"i:
"
.
Statl~'~ppitt,ed
'
ff~
,
132. For-these reason };:the Responden~:iBt~te submitted that it has not violated the
right ,tb' housing of?tI1~::(2cnnplajn~~sund'er
the combined provisions of
Articles
''''':!···~:~7f.j,~';'·'?
,;
.
12, 16·andJ8.;of
the
Africani~n:arter.
.
': ....
" '-_-, "
'-
""l,.
""""
::,
·'i,'',r. -
",
(ii) Respect for,hu;nqf{/li'g.n!nI(~rticle
~
"
.i'
'
5)
,
133. The Resp~~4ent Stat~ submitted that thr alleged violation of Article 5 of the
African Charter Jacks merit as the Complainants
have made no specific
factual
I
.
allegations a?oiit the right to respect ~or human dignity. The Government
argues that it would be unfair to expect the Respondent State to make
submissions on this alleged violation] because "the Respondent has no
indication from the Applicants' sUbmissidns regarding the alleged actions of the
Respondent that allegedly gave rise to thik violation."31
~~~~
, . \':>/'
I
I%P"'e;,":-CP-OARI4)"
f/~
..
;j~
-
{tThJ'l'
First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic of South Africa, para 5,3[
30 SERAC case (n 25 above).
I
.
,\10 ()
31 First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic
f South Africa, para 5f3~....~
29
~\<1.
";~
\.~
~;!:;;I
AU-UA
~
15'/0
o~
0..0\
<1"\
~JClt
Ul
~ \
,s:!5. 0
0":-':> ":>
Iy, ~ 4~·RICP.\~":- ~v'v~/
,~~,..
o,;,;~%}~ ~..Q.6.f-:;51
"._-=--~
.'