. '.' ._::. '.,.
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
their rights remain protected under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and
Unlawful Occupation of Land Act whio balances the rights of illegal occupiers
with that of the land owner. The Re pondent State submitted that it is not
guaranteed that the IDM Trust's application for eviction will succeed in the
event that the matter proceeded in the High Court.
153. In terms of the impracticability of JursUing the remaining remedies, the
Respondent State submitted that the (Commission's finding that it would be
impracticable for the Complainants tb pursue their remedies in the South
African court is unclear. Relying dn the pri"nCipl~, of subsidiarity, the
Respondent State argues that South Af~ican couifs'are<I;;e~t placed to interpret
South African law and that South Africkn ju.9~~~:qre besl\lJlaced to understand
the plight of vulnerable South Africans. ,Cit" a rt-q:&p"er,~F~.~"~:s
decided by the
c?urts, t~e. Respondent State argu~d t~~.y
~,~:kfrlc~fh~,0U:tt~;:lh.Clv~"c.~.r.ne
to the
aid of victims of alleged human ng,
buses b,~§ed dI\4he OUtC0m~,of several
decided cases.P And that the CC?~p .j~:pts ha~~jadva~~~chZlO sub~lssions as
to what prejudice they stand t~is.uffer 'If(§..8u~Q;;Africancou1\ts,.-;i£they ran the
ordinary course of the eviction' p'r~'G~,edihgs1ij~~
,ore the High C9:tirt.
154. The Respondent State ,s:u~mitted ~~~:]~J~alre~e
,,~have n~t been exhausted
and the complaina~~§:·h'\v.!:,;~dvan~~~El";10~~p§tsons
W'l,~?'¥twould not be possible
to pursue any 0~J~~i;!N.JTIedl~~)~:~0nsttateCli~~¥,.the~
~espondent State.
155. On the basis '(~ese ::;gume~~~l1.e R~POh~~~'State urged that Conunission
to make a fin~~~g that the Respona~iit,?~ate has not violated any of the rights in
the African Ch:~her.
'.' . ,
~(:\::~:~;:~,
.
)1.\.
~~~~~:;_'J':;:.
..'
The COll1~ission' s a:ri~~y,~ison the Me °ts
·~C:~W<':::'~" '~""
> .,,:'::.,,-,
_
.~>
Respondent~,~Ji., lel1~,:: the ·~i;!lftlH§i 't'e Writren submissions
156. Before '~~d:,~e'sirig::t~r';F;garties'.submis ions, the Commission no:es that the
Responde~r)i/S~ate h~~;i,/taken Issue wfth. the way the compl~m~nts have
presented \~~elr arguments on the IIjlents before the Commission.s? The
Respondent'State argued that the Complainants' submissions are vague' as it is
not clear wh~t;;ll1e allegations against t~e Respondent State are that need to be
answered', ana that the vagueness of the Complainants' submissions violates
the Respondent State's right to a fair hearing and due process. The Respondent
State argued that such uncertainty places South Africa at a disad;vantage in
these proceedings because it is forced t~ submit pleadings Ah,/.~,
wide in scope.
~~o
u«-~
0':,:, '.
r. 0 ((;
~ ...."\
1
~~Dav~l~_
1r/i0
o~·
.. '
!i
First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic of South Africa, para 6.~~
40 First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic bf South Africa, paras 5.i\\~~4.C'l
39
;~) ~Vi t
~'·.DI'-
~
\0C?:
t~'Cl-
-i:-tv,:J,
~I
'~\):"'t>-
(/)
,g; ; &'
I'-D
</<,; i
~
sSION A~~\G
'<'~~~~1'
iG,'?
,/