COHRE Forced Evictions Global Survey No.9 2003 by The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)

Through its Global Forced Eviction Project, COHRE actively campaigns against forced evictions wherever they occur or are planned. The Project’s worldwide network continually monitors such evictions and takes appropriate action to prevent them or remedy their consequences. The Project also provides housing rights training, advocacy and legal advice for grassroots organisations and individuals. Its campaigning includes litigation, accessing international and regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights, engaging in direct dialogue with governments and donors, and raising public awareness through the media and other outlets.

COHRE’s Global Surveys, a succinct historical and public record of one of the most widespread violations of economic, social and cultural rights, are designed to provide a major impetus to halt future abuses before they occur.

FORCED EVICTIONS

CO H R E A p r i l 2 0 0 3

This is the ninth in COHRE’s ‘Global Survey’ series on forced evictions, aimed at raising awareness of the often unknown scale of this practice. This Survey addresses a cross-section of forced evictions carried out between the beginning of 2001 and the end of 2002. It also indicates that well over six million persons are currently threatened by pending evictions in a wide range of countries. COHRE views its Global Surveys as part of a larger process whereby forced evictions are increasingly addressed in human rights terms and treated accordingly by grassroots movements, NGOs, researchers, lawyers, policy-makers and legislators.

Violations of Human Rights

COHRE continues to be actively involved in the worldwide movement against forced evictions. On request, it provides legal and advocacy assistance to those who have suffered or are facing forcible eviction, as well as to their communities and representatives, particularly in the framework of prevention. COHRE is continually expanding its network with other organisations, movements, groups and individuals working on these issues. It strives to consolidate these relationships with the aim of finally eradicating the human rights violations associated with the practice of forced evictions.

FORCED EVICTIONS

The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) undertakes a wide variety of activities supporting the full realisation of housing rights for everyone, everywhere. COHRE views the practice of forced eviction – as does the United Nations and international law generally – as a gross violation of a range of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing.

You can add to that impetus by reporting any forced evictions that take place or are planned. Please e-mail: evictions@cohre.org

Violations of Human Rights COHRE • 83 Rue de Montbrillant • 1202 Geneva • Switzerland tel: + 41.22.734.1028 • fax: + 41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org • website: www.cohre.org

COHRE April 2003

Global Survey on Fo rce d Ev i c t i o n s

Violations of Human Rights

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva, Switzerland tel: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org

COHRE – Global Forced Evictions Project 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva, Switzerland tel: +41.22.733.1126 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: steven@cohre.org

COHRE – Housing and Property Restitution Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva, Switzerland tel: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org

COHRE – U.S. Office 8 N. 2nd Avenue East, Suite 208 Duluth, MN 55802, U.S.A. tel/fax: +1.218.733.1370 e-mail: bret_thiele@yahoo.com e-mail: gomez_mayra@yahoo.com

COHRE – Women and Housing Rights Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva, Switzerland tel: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: birtes@yahoo.com

COHRE – Americas Programme Rua Demétrio Ribeiro 990/conj 305 90010-313 Porto Alegre Rio Grande do Sul Brazil tel/fax: + 55.51.3212.1904 e-mail: cohreamericas@cohre.org

COHRE – Africa Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva, Switzerland tel: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org

COHRE – Asia & Pacific Programme 124 Napier Street Fitzroy, VIC 3065 Australia tel/fax: +61.3.98702206 e-mail: ken@cohre.minihub.org

© Copyright 2003 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights - Global Survey No. 9 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Geneva, Switzerland All rights reserved The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions is registered in the Netherlands as a not-for-profit organization. Copies are available from: COHRE 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva Switzerland tel: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org www.cohre.org

ISBN: 92-95004-23-X

Editing: Rob Stuart Please send criticism or corrections to Steven@cohre.org Graphic design: Ontwerpburo Suggestie & illusie, Utrecht, The Netherlands, www.illusie.nl Print: Primavera in Amsterdam, The Netherlands Photos: COHRE

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................................................... 5 In Focus: Mega-Events and Forced Evictions ....................................................................... 7 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 10 2. Forced Evictions 2001 - 2002 ....................................................................................... 19 Africa

Asia, the Pacific & the Middle East

Angola Burundi CĂ´te dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Ivoire Democratic Republic of Congo Egypt Ethiopia Ghana Guinea Kenya Liberia Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Uganda Zimbabwe

19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 24 24 25 26 26 26 27 28 28 30

Afghanistan Bangladesh Cambodia China Fiji India Indonesia Israel and the Occupied Territories Japan Malaysia Nepal Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand Turkmenistan

The Americas

31 31 32 33 34 34 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 39 39

Argentina Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Jamaica Nicaragua United States of America

Europe Bulgaria Czech Republic Greece Hungary Italy Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of) The Netherlands Romania Russian Federation Serbia and Montenegro Ukraine

41 41 42 42 42 44 44 46 47 52 52 53 53 55 57 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 62 63 63 64 64 65 66

3. Threatened or Planned Forced Evictions ...................................................................... 67 Africa

Asia, the Pacific & the Middle East 77

Botswana Ghana Kenya Lesotho Namibia Nigeria South Africa Uganda Zimbabwe

68 68 68 69 70 70 70 71 71

The Americas

Argentina Brazil Canada Chile Colombia El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Paraguay Peru

72 72 73 74 74 74 74 75 75 76 76 76

Bangladesh China Fiji India Indonesia Israel and the Occupied Territories Laos Lebanon Pakistan Philippines Thailand Turkmenistan Viet Nam

77 77 78 78 79 80 80 81 81 81 82 82 82

Europe

Greece Hungary Italy Serbia and Montenegro Turkey United Kingdom

82 83 83 84 84 84

4. United Nations General Comment No. 7 on Forced Evictions (1997) ................................ 85 5. United Nations Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement (1997) .................................................................... 91 6. Publications available from COHRE ............................................................................. 98

Preface Forced eviction is the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection. Forced evictions are a particular type of displacement which are most often characterised or accompanied by: (1) a relation to specific decisions, legislation or policies of States or the failure of States to intervene to halt evictions by non-state actors; (2) an element of force or coercion; and (3) planning – forced evictions are often formulated and announced prior to being carried out. The right not to be forcibly evicted from one’s home is a fundamental human right. In its General Comment No. 7, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that “forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the [International] Covenant [on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] and can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant principles of international law.”1 The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has similarly affirmed “that the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing.”2 This is the ninth in the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) Global Survey series on the practice of forced eviction. In part due to ongoing advocacy efforts and continuing engagement with various United Nations human rights bodies, the practice of forced eviction is now widely recognized by the international human rights community as being a serious violation of human rights. While forced evictions were, and are indeed still, often conducted with impunity, the tide has nonetheless begun to turn. Today, local and international human rights organizations are more committed, more organized, and more coordinated than even before in their efforts to combat forced evictions. They are also more effective than ever before. The growing number of cases of forced eviction which COHRE has been able to document over the years in the Global Survey series reflects in large part the increased attention given to the practice by local and international human rights organizations in recent years. Preventing, documenting, publicizing and remedying forced evictions, and ensuring justice for the victims, has become the central work of dozens of organizations which, like COHRE, work to protect and promote the right to adequate housing for everyone, everywhere. Our solidarity with these advocacy organizations and the victims of forced evictions has continued to motivate our work, and we hope that this publication contributes to the worldwide movement aimed at stopping the practice of forced eviction – in all parts of our world. While forced evictions have been recognized by the United Nations as constituting a gross violation of human rights, these abuses continue to take place under a number of pretexts: in the name of national security; for the sake of city “beautification” or community development; under the guise of social protectionism or disaster prevention; or, simply without apology, for the benefit of powerful private economic actors. Nonetheless, behind the façade, the truth of forced eviction is quite different. It is certainly true that evictions are often accompanied by violence and force, leaving deep scars in the lives of victims. Indeed, victims often

1 2

For more information, please see the UN Committee’s General Comment No. 7 provided in Section 4 of this report and UN Fact Sheet No. 25: Forced Evictions and Human Rights. Commission on Human Rights (10 March 1993), Forced evictions, Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/77, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1993/77.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

resist being removed from their homes, struggling against members of security forces wh0 often meet their resistance with brutal reprisal. The event of forced eviction is always traumatizing, and even more so for those persons, often the women of the house, who are actually at home at the time. But the initial trauma suffered during a forced eviction is not the whole of the experience. Rather, forced evictions have an ongoing negative effect because they so often serve to devastate communities: they contribute to the disintegration of key social ties and networks; they wreck havoc on the economic well-being of families; they leave a legacy of social insecurity; and they compromise the realization of other human rights, including the rights to health, education, work, social participation and social equality. Forced evictions are also deeply reflective of patterns of social inequality, revealing to us the ugly fault lines of social discrimination, injustice and exclusion. This reality is almost instantly apparent in any situation where forced evictions occur, as it is frequently the most vulnerable and the most marginalized who are targeted. To work against forced eviction is to work not only for the protection of the right to adequate housing, but also for social equality and social justice in the broadest sense. As all human rights are interdependent and interrelated, to work toward the realization of one human right is to contribute to the realization of all human rights. We at COHRE would like to extend our thanks to all of the organizations and individuals who have provided information on the practice of forced eviction for inclusion in Global Survey 9. By continuing to monitor State practices with regard to forced eviction, we are better able to pinpoint areas of concern and strengthen our efforts to protect housing rights. In this issue, we have chosen to focus on the topic of forced evictions within the context of mega-events such as the Olympics and other similarly large-scale national and international events. The right to adequate housing and to be protected from forced eviction often falls by the way-side in the context of these mega-events, as national and local authorities turn their attention to sweeping poverty under the rug rather than constructively addressing the issue. In the process, the lives of the affected poor become all the more difficult and compromised. We hope that our discussion of the practice of forced eviction during mega-events will serve to alter the ways in which decisions are made by national and local authorities, and we hope that many other organizations become involved in raising the profile of these abuses so that they can no longer be perpetrated. As always, we welcome your comments and feedback on this Global Survey as well as any information about forced evictions in your region at any time. If you know of an organization or individual who may benefit from this Global Survey, we encourage you to pass it on or to put them in touch with COHRE. Finally, COHRE is pleased to announce the establishment of its Global Forced Eviction Project. The Project monitors evictions wherever they occur and takes appropriate action to prevent or remedy such forced evictions. The Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work includes housing rights training, advocacy, legal advice for grassroots organisations and individuals, engaging in direct dialogue with governments and donors, raising public awareness through the media and other outlets, litigation, and accessing international and regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights. Scott Leckie COHRE Executive Director Geneva, 2003

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

In Focus: Mega-Events and Forced Evictions Mega-events, including global conferences and international sporting events and competitions such as the Olympic Games, are all too often accompanied by forced evictions. While the majority of the world looks upon these events as an opportunity to express international solidarity and national pride, the untold price of these mega-events often includes the mass forced evictions of hundreds upon hundreds, or even thousands upon thousands, of innocent persons. Like all forced evictions, evictions within the context of mega-events serve to perpetuate the insecurity of the affected poor by contributing both to ongoing housing poverty and to the dissolution of important social networks. For example, within the context of the Olympic Games, hundreds if not thousands of people have been evicted in cities which have hosted the Games, including Seoul, South Korea (1988), Barcelona, Spain (1992), Atlanta, U.S.A. (1996) and Sydney, Australia (2000). Still more evictions have occurred in cities merely contending for the Olympics, such as Osaka, Japan and Toronto, Canada. According to our sources, in Beijing, China, host of the 2008 Olympic Summer Games, some 69 000 households have already been forcibly evicted, or are currently at risk of being forcibly evicted. Similarly, several thousand have been evicted or face eviction in Athens, Greece as the 2004 Games approach, many of them of the Roma minority, who are simply being displaced in order to “clean up” the city for the expected tourists. Information from other cities which have hosted the Olympic Games underscores the potential devastation for low-income people. The Seoul 1988 Olympics, for example, caused the forced relocation of approximately 720 000 people in Seoul and Inchon. In fact, according to Kris Olds, a leading scholar on the effects of mega-events on cities, in cities as diverse as San Antonio (U.S.A.), Seattle (U.S.A.), Montreal (Canada), Spokane (U.S.A.), Knoxville (U.S.A.), New Orleans (U.S.A.) and Brisbane (Australia) “event-induced pressures have resulted in the eviction of hundreds to thousands of tenants.” There are several inter-related reasons why forced evictions often occur within the context of a mega-event. The funds available to host cities are often used for so-called urban development. In many cases, when the eyes of the world fall upon a particular place because of a mega-event to be held there, “beautifying” the public space becomes a priority for the host city. In addition, as Kris Olds has noted, “mega-events are designed to ‘reimagine’ the city in a manner which will reshape dominant perceptions about the desirability of urban living, and thereby attract a new middle class to visit and (preferably) live within the confines of a more vibrant city centre.” While this is not necessarily a problem in itself, all too often, city “beautification” translates into an official or unofficial policy to remove the poor, and their homes, from the sight of international visitors and potential foreign investors. The phrase “out of sight, out of mind” would seem to hold true for those policy-makers who see the elimination of certain types of housing as one way to improve the aesthetic appeal of their city, without engaging in consultation with poor communities and without offering any adequate alternative. Clearing slums, bulldozing informal communities, and evacuating squatter settlements, in fact, often serve a dual purpose: firstly to “beautify” for the sake of tourism and in order to attract investment and capital; and secondly to create space for the building of new facilities deemed necessary to hosting the event, including luxury hotels, sport arenas and entertainment complexes. In addition, governments may utilize the opportunity to implement retrogressive or repressive policies against targeted groups, such as minorities, the homeless persons, or youth. Not surprisingly therefore, forced evictions and similar human rights violations within the context of mega-events often occur on a massive scale, relegating to the lowest priority the needs and wishes of the poor and socially vulnerable .

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

Further, in addition to the original forced eviction, mega-events often result in long-term displacement by contributing to gentrification and segregation. As this report notes in detail, a number of international instruments recognize the right to adequate housing, including the right to be protected from forced eviction. These human rights standards and laws forbid forced eviction, and make no exception for those occurring within the context of a mega-event. In fact, whether forced evictions are carried out by agents of the government or by private developers, the onus of responsibility continues to fall on the shoulders of the State, which under international human rights law has the obligation to protect residents from forced eviction regardless of who the perpetrator is. While the Olympic Games have perhaps received the greatest attention with regard to the mass evictions which have taken place in their wake, they are certainly not the only international event guilty of such offences. All manner of international conferences, be they for the purpose of international finance, entertainment, or intergovernment cooperation, have had similar results. This suggests that as we work to end forced evictions during mega-events, we should take into account the various and multiple actors capable of setting standards and policies with regard to forced eviction within the context of a particular event. Our strategy in this regard should be multi-faceted, targeting funding agencies, international decision-making bodies, governments and even event participants. Furthermore, in order to prevent forced evictions from occurring within the context of mega-events, it is important to continue to work toward universal legal security of tenure, which should be extended to all residents. Security of tenure means that residents are protected by a legal agreement against arbitrary forced eviction or expropriation of property. Secure tenure is essential to developing sustainable cities, human dignity and urban development, and is an essential element of housing rights, as it is fundamentally related to the long term security of oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home. An individual or group, such as a family, can be said to have secure tenure when they are protected from involuntary removal from their land or residence, except in exceptional circumstances, and then only by means of a known and agreed legal procedure. Forms of secure tenure include leasehold, freehold, conditional freehold, collective tenure, and communal tenure, as well as legislative protections applicable to all dwellers. New social movements, in collaboration with international and local human rights organizations, have begun to successfully organize all over the world in order to try to ameliorate the negative effects of mega-events on the lives of the poor. Perhaps most well-known, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bread not Circusesâ&#x20AC;? campaign in Toronto, Canada gives us a striking example of how coordinated activism was effective in protecting the housing rights of potentially hundreds of persons. While the City of Toronto was ultimately not awarded the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the extent of community organization against potential forced evictions was unprecedented. In fact, as communities throughout the world become more and more aware of the hidden costs of hosting a mega-event, more and more local movements have risen to reject them. The importance of consultation with affected communities cannot be over-emphasized. As the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has noted in its General Comment No. 7 on Forced Evictions (see Section 4 of this report), States should ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions, and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasible alternatives are explored in consultation with the affected persons. In addition, States should adopt legislation forbidding forced eviction within the context of mega-events, as such legislation is an essential basis upon which to build a system of effective protection. Such legislation should

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

include measures which (a) provide the greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land, (b) conform to human rights norms established under the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including those ensuring due process in cases of forced eviction, and (c) are designed to strictly control the circumstances under which evictions may be carried out. Such legislation must also apply to all agents who are acting under the authority of the State or who are accountable to it.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

1 Introduction

Introduction Despite many positive developments in recent years which have significantly strengthened legal protection against forced eviction under international human rights law and which continue to confirm that forced evictions are a gross violation of human rights, and despite the many ongoing efforts by human rights organisations to eliminate the practice, forced evictions continue to occur on a large scale in virtually all countries in all parts of the world. This Global Survey is the ninth and most extensive compilation on forced evictions published by COHRE since this series began in 1990 and addresses forced evictions that COHRE monitored between January 2001 and December 2002. Though the practice of forced eviction shares many characteristics with related phenomena such as internal displacement, population transfer, mass exodus, refugee movements and ethnic cleansing, under international law forced eviction is regarded as a distinct practice generating particular legal obligations on behalf of States and particular rights for people threatened or victimised by this practice. This is evidenced by the international standards specifically addressing forced eviction which have been adopted by a range of human rights bodies in recent years, and the manner in which forced eviction is addressed within all international and domestic legal jurisdictions. Perhaps most notable among these is General Comment No. 7, adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Committee) in 1997 (see Section 4). General Comment No. 7 affirms that forced eviction violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Covenant) and defines the practice in terms of concrete elements that lend themselves to judicial enforcement. The Committee has continually reminded governments that they have legal obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate housing as enshrined in Article 11(1) of the Covenant, and that forced evictions contravene those obligations. In particular, the obligation to respect requires that States do not carry out forced evictions, while the obligation to protect obliges States to prevent forced evictions by non-State actors such as landlords, developers and paramilitary forces. While there are many conceptual areas of convergence between the various manifestations of displacement, several key factors seem to distinguish forced evictions from related phenomena involving the coerced removal or flight of persons from their homes. These can be divided into eight key distinctions: 1. Forced evictions always raise issues of human rights (whereas other types of displacement do not invariably involve human rights concerns); 2. Forced evictions are generally planned, foreseen or publicly announced (whereas other types of coerced movement may occur spontaneously and not necessarily be part of a State policy or legal regime); 3. Forced evictions often involve the conscious use of physical force (whereas other types of displacement do not always involve physical force); 4. Forced evictions raise issues of State responsibility (and determining liability for a forced eviction will often be much easier than doing the same for other types of displacement); 5. Forced evictions affect both individuals and groups (whereas most other types of displacement only affect groups);

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

6. Forced evictions are generally regulated or legitimised by national or local law (whereas other types of displacement may be more random or may simply not be addressed legally); 7. Forced evictions almost always involve an attempt to rationalize the process by those sponsoring or supporting the evictions in question (whereas this is not often the case with other types of displacement); 8. Not all evictions constitute forced eviction, and evictions can sometimes be consistent with human rights (most other forms of displacement cannot be justified on human rights grounds, whereas evictions may be justified for reasons of public order, the safety and security of the dwellers and threats to public health). The forced evictions covered in this Global Survey occur largely as a result of development projects, discrimination, urban redevelopment schemes, gentrification, urban beautification, land alienation in both rural and urban areas and in situations of armed conflict and ethnic cleansing, or in their aftermath. Examining the practice of forced eviction from a human rights perspective reveals that the reasons and justifications commonly provided by governments for implementing forced evictions, and the manner in which evictions are carried out, rarely meet the international standards required by human rights law and rarely correspond to basic notions of human dignity.

Estimated Number of Reported Forced Evictions by Region: 2001-2002*

Africa The Americas Asia, the Pacific & the Middle East Europe Total Evicted

Persons 4 086 971 692 390 1 787 097 172 429 6 738 887

Estimated Number of Reported Threatened or Planned Forced Evictions* Africa The Americas Asia, the Pacific & the Middle East Europe Total Under Threat of Eviction

1 577 623 522 248 3 907 391 327 010 6 334 262

*Unless more specific data was available, estimates were constructed using the following equivalencies: 1 family = 5 persons; 1 community/area/village/town = 200 persons; 1 flat or house = 5 persons; 1 room = 3 persons; 1 apartment building = 100 persons; “thousands” or “hundreds” = 3 000 persons or 300 persons, respectively; 1 group of families = 50 persons; 1 settlement/neighbourhood/camp/encampment/quarter = 50 persons; entire region of a country = 10 000 persons; “a number of”/”several”/”many”/”numerous” = 5 persons or families, depending on the specification made within the text.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

This Global Survey examines cases involving nearly seven million persons in 60 countries who were forcibly evicted from their homes in 2001-2002, and more than six million others in 38 countries under threat of forced eviction at the time of compiling this report. Often, these evictions are accompanied by severe violence, with victims on many occasions detained, arrested, beaten, tortured, and in some cases, even killed. This compilation, of course, captures only a representative cross-section of a much wider practice which affects, to one degree or another, all countries. Indeed, exceptionally few States – including those that strongly support human rights and where the rule of law prevails – have succeeded in protecting all categories of people from unlawful, illegal, unjust or plainly unfair forced evictions. This report records instances of forced eviction on the basis of information COHRE has received directly from affected persons and groups and where the cases at hand are particularly noteworthy. As such, this study does not purport to be comprehensive in terms of representing the universal scale of the practice of forced eviction. Without a doubt, the actual number of forced evictions occurring during 2001 and 2002 is bound to be considerably higher than the nearly seven million reported here. Yet this report serves as an indicator of the manner in which this single practice – replicated across the globe – can result in millions of persons suffering what in most cases are entirely unnecessary and avoidable violations of basic human rights. It must be emphasised that the absence of a particular country in this survey should not necessarily be viewed as evidence that the eviction situation in that country is tolerable or consistent with international law. In some cases, the exclusion of a given country may be due to a reasonable eviction policy. In other instances, countries not mentioned here may sometimes provide dreadful examples of large-scale forced eviction contrary to human rights law, and their omission is simply due to a lack of available and accurate data. Though the sheer numbers of forced evictions paint an ugly picture, it is the human cost associated with forced eviction that best measures the toll that this practice takes. As this Global Survey shows, evicted people not only lose their homes and neighbourhoods, in which they have often invested a considerable proportion of their incomes over the years, but are often forced to leave behind personal possessions because, often, little warning is given before bulldozers or demolition squads destroy their settlements. Forced evictions are inevitably traumatic; they cause injury, they affect the most vulnerable, and they place victims at risk of further violence. Evictees often lose those relationships which provide a safety net or survival network of protection against ill health, income decline or job loss, and which allow many daily tasks to be shared. Sources of livelihood are frequently lost as evictees are forced to move away from the area where they had a job or a source of income. In particular, women evictees face unique challenges, suffering disproportionately from violence before, during, and after forced eviction. In addition, in situations of forced eviction and homelessness, women often have to manage multiple responsibilities as the primary caretakers of children, the sick, and the elderly .

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

In those few cases where resettlement is offered, more often than not it is inadequate and poorly situated. Compensation – whether manifested in the form of rehousing, resettlement or simply financial – is rarely provided to evictees. Yet, if forced evictions are, as international human rights law rightly concludes, a serious violation of human rights, then surely those suffering as a result of this practice are entitled by these same laws to just and satisfactory compensation for the wrongful act carried out against them. Indeed, the issue of compensation for forced evictions is an area in which COHRE plans to devote expanded attention in the future. If States were to be compelled to provide evictees with compensation equivalent to the value of the property, land, housing and possessions lost as a result of forced eviction, governments around the world would be required to spend literally billions of dollars to offset the human rights violations they actively commit or passively allow to occur. The international community must hold evicting States accountable not only for the initial rights violations, but also to the duty to prevent homelessness and to compensate justly and satisfactorily any and all persons illegitimately evicted from their homes and lands. COHRE is particularly concerned with the various forms of violence – physical, psychological, sexual and structural – associated with forced eviction. Having monitored the practice of forced evictions in many world regions over the past several years, COHRE has come to realize that in many respects the process of forced eviction, in its various manifestations and with its impact on everyday lives, not only often takes place within the context of, but actually parallels, what occurs during and after war and armed conflict situations. For example, to ensure a complete and successful eviction it is now common practice for governments to employ armed police officers, SWAT teams, criminal gangs and hired thugs, as well as bulldozers and other heavy equipment . COHRE continues to receive regular reports of the use of severe violence during forced eviction, including killing, beating, rape and other forms of torture. COHRE firmly opposes such violence in all instances and believes that these injustices must be exposed and stopped. All persons or institutions carrying out such violence should be held criminally liable and prosecuted accordingly. In addition, the past few years have been witness to the emergence of some particularly complex and volatile situations involving forced eviction. For example, displaced persons who fled from their homes during the unrest in places such as Kosovo and East Timor are now seeking to return to their homelands and their homes. Upon their return, however, returnees have frequently found their houses occupied by displaced persons from other ethnic groups, who themselves cannot return to their original homes because they face the same predicament. Given such scenarios, COHRE believes that the world needs to examine the broader theme of housing and property restitution in the context of post-conflict reconstruction and development much more thoroughly than it has to date. This situation clearly raises issues of forced eviction and demands appropriate and meaningful responses. To this end, COHRE has established its Housing and Property Restitution Programme. The Housing and Property Restitution Programme works for the voluntary, safe and dignified return of refugees and internally displaced persons by advocating for the adoption of legislation and the implementation of mechanisms for the return of their housing. In addition to providing considerable input to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) policy on housing and property restitution, COHRE was responsible for the design and eventual establishment of the UN Transitional Authority’s Housing and Property Directorate (HPD) in Kosovo. COHRE has designed similar programmes for Albania, East Timor and the Republic of Georgia, and plans to carry out related activities in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

International Standard Setting Relating to the Practice of Forced Evictions Housing rights have continued to receive considerable attention at the United Nations over the past two years, much of which came about due to initiatives first envisioned and proposed by COHRE. With regard to issues of forced eviction, COHRE helped to achieve several notable resolutions and decisions which once again brought forced eviction to the fore of international attention, particularly with respect to the UN Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Commission resolution 2001/34 entitled “Women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing” reaffirmed once again that forced relocation and forced eviction from home and land have a disproportionately severe impact on women. The resolution also urged governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure and the equal rights of women. Sub-Commission decision 2001/122, entitled “The return of refugees’ or displaced persons’ property”, appointed Mr Paulo Sergio Pinheiro to present a working paper on this topic to the Sub-Commission at its session in August 2002. The working paper (UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/17) provides an examination of current international, regional, and national standards relating to housing and property restitution and begins to identify impediments to restitution. COHRE worked closely with Mr Pinheiro on the preparation of the working paper, which is aimed at bringing the issue of housing and property restitution increasingly to the attention of the UN. Sub-Commission resolution 2002/7 entitled “Housing and property restitution in the context of refugees and other displaced persons” appointed Mr Pinheiro as Special Rapporteur on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Other Displaced Persons. If approved by the Commission at its Spring 2003 session, Mr Pinheiro will begin a three-year comprehensive examination of this important topic. The ultimate goal of the above-mentioned working paper and the comprehensive study is to better protect the millions of refugees and other persons presently displaced from their homes, many as a result of forced eviction.

Privatisation and neo-liberalisation have become dominant economic paradigms throughout the ‘globalising’ world. It is commonly forgotten that these processes, which have generated so much wealth, also frequently leave low-income people facing significant reductions in the availability of low-cost or social housing and the erosion of social assistance entitlements. As a result, large numbers of the poor are being evicted for non-payment of rent and are falling into homelessness. In such situations, it must be recognised that even evictions which are otherwise legitimate contravene international law if those evicted are rendered homeless. Though this Global Survey does not necessarily provide answers to the questions raised by these and other cases, COHRE believes that documenting these difficult cases will contribute to an understanding of the complexities and nuances associated with forced eviction, particularly in these economically and politically volatile times. In order to assist in the struggle to prevent forced evictions and to remedy those evictions that have already occurred, COHRE published Sources No. 3: Forced Evictions and Human Rights: A Manual for Action. Sources No. 3 provides human rights practitioners, community-based organisations and individuals with the tools necessary to promote and protect the right to adequate housing, and in particular the right to be free from forced eviction. COHRE hopes that Sources No. 3, as well as this Global Survey No. 9, will aid in the effort to combat forced evictions wherever they may occur.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

In the descriptions of forced evictions outlined in Section 2, wherever possible, information is provided on the context within which eviction took place. Immediately following the descriptions of evictions in each country, information is provided on the Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s legal recognition of the right to adequate housing under international and national legislation. Under each State we have noted the following: 1. Whether the country in question has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the most important international legal treaty embodying housing rights, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and which came into force in 1976.

Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights guarantees the right to adequate housing using the following terminology: The States parties to present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself [herself] and his [her] family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

If the country has ratified the ICESCR and is thus legally bound to comply with Article 11(1) and the other provisions of the Covenant, this is indicated by ICESCR: Yes below the paragraph(s) on that country. If the country has not ratified the ICESCR, this is indicated by ICESCR: No 2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) can also be invoked to prevent or remedy forced evictions. In particular, Article 17, which guarantees the protection from arbitrary or unlawful interference with the home, can be used to this end. Additionally, if a State Party to the ICCPR is also a party to the First Optional Protocol (1OP-ICCPR), individuals can bring petitions, or complaints, directly to the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR. Whether a government is a party to the ICCPR, and to the 1OP-ICCPR, is also indicated below the paragraph(s) on the country in question. 3. Regional human rights instruments also prohibit the practice of forced evictions. In particular, the African Charter on Human and Peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Rights (African Charter), the American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention), and the [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention) all protect persons from forced eviction. Whether a country is a party to these regional instruments is also indicated below the paragraph(s) on the country; for example by African Charter: Yes. 4. Whether the country in question has recognised the right to adequate housing in its national Constitution. If the country has included housing rights provisions within the national Constitution this is indicated by Constitution: Yes; if not, this is indicated by Constitution: No.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

This Global Survey, No. 9 in our series, will be made available to governments, individuals, United Nations agencies and human rights bodies, as well as to the many community-based and non-governmental organizations and other advocates involved in the international movement against forced evictions. It is COHREâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sincere belief, based on many years of experience trying to prevent forced evictions, that documenting and exposing to the international community the widespread and often violent practice of forced eviction can assist in ensuring that the practice of forced eviction is confronted from a human rights perspective and that forced evictions can actually be prevented. The position of international human rights law on forced eviction is becoming increasingly clear. Thinly veiled arguments by governments in defence of the practice are unacceptable. In many cases, forced evictions are accompanied by other gross violations of human rights. COHRE is convinced that by exposing concrete cases of forced eviction, pressure can be brought to bear on States that are planning to forcibly evict their residents. We hope that States will be persuaded to abide by their respective international human rights and moral obligations and to abandon their use of forced eviction.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

2 Forced Evictions 2001 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2002

“The vans and bulldozers came first, rumbling along the main road; they stopped opposite the ghetto of the magicians. A loudspeaker began to blare: ‘Civic beautification programme … prepare instantly for evacuation to new site … this slum is a public eyesore, can no longer be tolerated … all persons will follow orders without dissent.’ And while a loudspeaker blared, there were figures descending from vans: a brightly-coloured tent was being hastily erected, and there were camp beds and surgical equipment … and now from the vans there poured a stream of finely-dressed young ladies of high birth and foreign education, and then a second river of equally-well-dressed young men: volunteers doing their bit for society … but then I realized no, not volunteers …people were being dragged towards the vans ‘… sterilization is being performed!’ And a riot is beginning … the air is thick with yells and missiles … troops are sent in against magicians, women and children … By the end of that day, the slum which clustered in the shadow of the Friday Mosque had vanished from the face of the earth … a new slum was reported in the heart of the city, hard by the railway station …” - Excerpt from Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie (Penguin, 1995).

Africa ANGOLA • According to Amnesty International, on two successive weekends in July 2001, the police, including the Rapid Intervention Police and the Angola National Police and supported by armed forces units, forcibly evicted residents of the Boavista neighbourhood of Luanda and demolished their homes. On both occasions, police officers fired into the crowds that resisted the eviction, killing Emílio Rafael and Andrade Jungo Jaime and injuring at least nine others, including António Samuel. Other protesters were bitten by police dogs. Fifteen people were arrested and brought to court within a week on charges of possessing firearms and disobeying police orders to disperse. No prosecution evidence was presented and the defendants were released pending further police investigation. Among those arrested was the coordinator of the Boavista residents, José Rasgadinho, who was again detained for a few days in September on charges of incitement to violence. This trial was also suspended for lack of evidence. By the end of 2001, the trials had not resumed and there had been no independent inquiry into the use of lethal force against the protesters.3 COHRE met with the Government of Angola in August 2001 in order to condemn the forced evictions in Boavista, which it learned were carried out to make way for the construction of luxury condominiums. COHRE also sought to enter into a dialogue with the Government with the aim of preventing further evictions and remedying those that had already occurred. COHRE also brought the evictions to the attention of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which sent a letter of inquiry to the Government. • The armed conflict and insecurity in 2001 were responsible for displacing 300 000 persons, bringing the total to four million internally displaced persons in Angola, most of whom live in a precarious humanitarian situation.4 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: Yes 3 4

Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Angola, London: AI (2002); see also Global IDP Project, Government development plans lead to forcible evictions from Luanda inner-city district (July 2001). Id.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

BURUNDI • The United Nations reported that violence in Ruyigi, a town in eastern Burundi, carried out in November 2001 by the rebel group Forces pour la defense de la democratie, resulted in the displacement of 2 500 persons.5 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

CÔTE D’IVOIRE (IVORY COAST) • In the context of fighting rebellious military elements, hundreds have been forcibly evicted and witnessed the destruction of their homes at the hands of troops on all sides to the conflict. Many of the victims of forced evictions lived in squatter settlements and were accused of not being citizens of Côte d’Ivoire. Such actions violate the international human rights obligations of Côte d’Ivoire, as the right to be free from forced evictions must be respected and protected without discrimination of any kind, including national origin. According to a statement by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “In Abidjan, the demolition of houses in the city’s shanty towns continues, affecting thousands of Abidjan’s local and foreign inhabitants, including refugees. During a visit to UNHCR’s office [in October 2002], the Minister of Human Rights said the razing of shanty towns would be suspended for ten days. There is still no suspension,” the Office added.6 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO • Some 1.3 million persons were forcibly displaced in the Democratic Republic of Congo from January 2001 to the end of February 2002. For instance, during the second week of October 2001, a tumultuous situation in the Fizi Territory forcibly displaced some 4 000 persons.7 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: Yes

5 6 7

UNOCHA/IRIN, Burundi: Another 2 500 IDPs expected in Ruyigi (9 November 2001). UN Integrated Regional Information Network, At Least 1 600 Seek Refuge in Mali (8 October 2002). Global IDP Project, IDPs in Democratic Republic of the Congo (2002); UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 28 February 2002.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

EGYPT • The Egyptian Center for Housing Rights reported that the Cairo Government forcibly evicted families and demolished 25 houses in the Duwayqa area in March 2001. The authorities, accompanied by security forces and bulldozers, destroyed the 25 houses without prior notice to the inhabitants and without giving the victims a period of grace. When inhabitants went to the Government’s security department to deliver their grievances to the Cairo governor, they were reportedly severely hit and insulted by the police. Three weeks after the demolition of their housing, the families were still living amid the ruins of their homes and had failed to receive any government support or promise of alternative housing.8 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

ETHIOPIA • In September 2002, the Addis Ababa municipal authorities began to forcibly evict some 10 000 persons from the Bole Bulbula area, near Ethiopia’s International Airport. Forced evictions in other parts of Addis Ababa during 2001 and 2002, reportedly to clear land for sale to a foreign developer, affected up to 30 000 persons.9 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

GHANA • The Center for Public Interest Law, as confirmed by the Daily Graphic, reported that some 30 000 persons were threatened with forced eviction in the so-called Sodom & Gomorrah settlement near Accra. The community-members were given notice that they were to be evicted within two weeks to make way for an environmental project funded in part by the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development, the OPEC Fund for International Development, and the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa. The community-members were not provided with alternative housing, in violation of the Government of Ghana’s human rights obligations. Although the Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) fought hard to prevent the evictions, the court order allowing the evictions was upheld.

8 9

Egyptian Center for Housing Rights, Call for International Solidarity against Evictions in Cairo, 16 April 2001. See Water Aid, Land Tenure (June 2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• On 6 February 2001, according to FIAN (FoodFirst Information Action Network), Kyekyewere village in Western Ghana was demolished by police forces. Three hundred villagers were evicted to make way for the Australian Trans-National Corporation affiliate Aboso Ghana Ltd. The South African company, Goldfields Ghana Ltd., was also responsible for forced evictions in the area. The affected people were not offered adequate compensation. Consequently, many people did not accept the resettlement programme of the respective gold mining company and refused to leave their ancestral land. In the case of Goldfields Ghana Ltd., the people in the villages of Akontanse and Old Atuabo became the target of daily harassment by the company’s armed forces. In both cases, harassment was used to prevent those people who had refused to leave their village from carrying out any income-generating activities, in particular from working their fields.10 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: Yes

GUINEA • Cross-border violence involving security forces from Guinea as well as armed political groups from Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, in particular the Revolutionary United Front, resulted in the ‘constructive’ eviction (making living conditions unbearable for residents, so that they are forced to leave) and displacement of tens of thousands of Guineans in 2001, further contributing to a total of up to 300 000 internally displaced Guineans.11 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

KENYA • The Nation reported that more than 100 civil servants and their families were evicted from their government quarters in Mombasa. Their homes were allocated to local politicians, well-connected businessmen and senior government officials. One civil servant reportedly claimed he had been threatened by his boss with transfer, or the sack, if he did not accept Sh50 000 to leave quietly. The affected houses are on Hobley Road in Buxton, with a few flats remaining in Ganjoni, where some civil servants were previously evicted and their flats demolished.12 • Ms Rasna Warah, editor of Habitat Debate, a UNCHS (Habitat) periodical, reported that shortly after dark one night in June 2001, a Molotov cocktail exploded in a squatter community on the north-eastern outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital city. Fortunately, the 2 000 or so residents were not asleep and no lives were lost in the resulting fire. But they lost much of everything else they owned, including beds, stools, clothes and crockery. The fire was no accident. Like many arson attacks on informal settlements in the country, it was meant as a

10 11 12

FIAN (23 February 2001). Amnesty International, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone: A human rights crisis for refugees and the internally displaced, London: AI (2001). The Nations, Families Face Eviction (18 June 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

warning — leave or die. “Squatters across the country live in perpetual fear of being evicted by the authorities or private developers”, says Mr Othello Gruduah of the East African Standard, a local daily. “Like a feeding deer with an ear to the ground, just in case a predator lurks nearby, the peace of the squatters is temporary. They are refugees — a people on the move in their own country with nowhere to lay their heads.” Yet, Ms Warah reported, squatters and slum dwellers comprise the majority of Nairobi’s 2.3 million residents. Recent statistics indicate that 60 per cent of the city’s population — 1.4 million people — reside in the more than 100 slum and squatter communities scattered on the fringes of, and within, the city. Most are crowded onto less than 5 per cent of the total residential land in the city.13 • On 1 July 2002, over 40 former employees of Kenya Railways Corporation (KRC) were forcibly evicted from company houses. This is despite them having acquired a court order barring the management from doing so. Additionally, in Kisumu, over 130 retirees and their families were spending the nights in the cold since forced evictions began on 29 June. The evictions followed an order issued by the KRC to its former employees on 28 June to vacate the houses within 24 hours or be forcefully evicted. The evictions were conducted by armed Kenya Railways Police under the supervision of KRC officers. The residents contend that the eviction was a breach of their contract with the corporation, which states that they would only vacate the staff houses after they were paid their terminal benefits. The employees had acquired a court order against KRC management to allow them stay in the houses until they were paid. It was reported that the KRC was restructuring everything within its system so as to make the houses available to outsiders at prevailing market rates.14 On 5 July, the High Court ordered the Kenya Railways Managing Director to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court.15 • After being dismissed for going out on strike during a labour dispute, Air Traffic Controllers were surprised at 5:00 a.m. on 12 April 2002 when Administrative Police showed up and forcibly evicted them from their government-supplied homes. The Air Traffic Controllers vacated the homes, which were then sealed under lock and key.16 • In October 2001, some 867 persons were reduced to living in makeshift shelters after officials evicted them from a government-owned forest. The former residents had lived in the forest for eight years with the permission of the Government. No compensation was offered to the group. The Kenyan Red Cross Society, meanwhile, was supplying them with food and other basic necessities.17 • According to a COHRE fact-finding team, some 8 000 persons were forcibly evicted in one incident near Mombasa in 2002. These and similar demolitions undertaken at that time by the Government of Kenya resulted in the deaths of 20 persons. ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No 13 14 15 16 17

See http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no1/151city3.htm. The East African Standard, Kenya Railways Evicts 170 Retirees (2 July 2002). The Nations, Explain Why You Should Not Be Jailed, KR Boss Told (5 July 2002). The East African Standard, Govt Now Evicts Sacked Air Traffic Controllers (13 April 2002). Africa News Service, Inc. (1 September 2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

LIBERIA • In April and May 2001, according to Amnesty International, as many as 30 000 persons from upper Lofa County were displaced to Bong County; in August and September 2001 up to 20 000 more people were displaced from Lofa County to Cape Mount and Gbopolu Counties; and in November and December 2001 up to 20 000 were re-displaced to Bomi County and to Monrovia when fighting broke out near Gbopolu.18 The World Food Program reported that as many as 40 000 persons have been ‘constructively’ evicted (indirectly forced to leave, living conditions having been made unbearable for them) and displaced in Lofa County by June 2001.19 ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

NIGERIA “An official of the Mainland Local Government came in the morning with some policemen and told us that we had thirty minutes to move out of the house as the new owner was about to take possession of the building. He returned after thirty minutes with some carpenters, those ones moved straight to the roof and began to dismantle it. Some thugs accompanied them, they barged into our rooms and started moving out household items, while a company of well-armed policemen positioned themselves so as to prevent the tenants from resisting the onslaught.” - Twelve- Year Old Resident of residential building in Lagos (April 2002).

• In 2002, a COHRE fact-finding team investigated the forced eviction of the Yanyan settlement in Abuja. The team learned that the settlement was demolished during April 2002 to make way for the Yanyan-Keffi dual carriageway to be constructed later in the year. COHRE will issue a full report in early 2003. • Shelter Rights Initiative reported that the Nigerian Government initiated massive destruction of properties in communities across the country, thereby rendering thousands homeless. Some of the communities include Odi (in Rivers State), Pera, Kyado, Gbeji, Chome, Ifer, Joolarshilile, Iorja, Vaase, Zaki Ibiam, Ise Adoor, Sunkera and Tor Donga. • Some 5 000 residents of the Apostolic Church Estate, Oyewole Village, Papa Ashafa, Agege, a Lagos suburb, were evicted from their homes in May 2001 following a Supreme Court ruling that the parcel of land they occupied belonged to the Apostolic Church. The case was first taken to the courts in 1960. Over time, the occupiers made their homes on the vacant plots, which many had ‘bought’ under questionable circumstances from desperate, self-proclaimed, but evidently dubious, landlords. Although the squatters accepted the court’s ruling, reports in local newspapers stated that armed thugs and men in police uniforms without names or badges ter-

18 19

Amnesty International, World Report 2002: Liberia, London: AI (2002). Amnesty International, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone: A human rights crisis for refugees and the internally displaced, London: AI (2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

rorised residents and damaged property as a means of “enforcing” the court ruling. One resident was quoted as saying that the raids “left many of us residents wounded. A lot of valuable property was also lost or destroyed.” The church denied any violence from their side during the eviction.20 • In mid-March 2002, residents of a residential building in Lagos were given thirty minutes notice to vacate their homes. After the expiration of the thirty-minute period, carpenters dismantled the roof while hired thugs threw the residents’ possessions into the street, all under the protection of local police forces. The eviction was halted after a resident proved to a senior police officer (and friend) that the eviction order was unlawful. The residents had nowhere else to go. They were allowed to return to their homes, but the building no longer had a roof and was severely damaged. According to residents, they lost various amounts of money and other valuables to the thugs who came with the eviction team.21 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: Yes

SENEGAL • A COHRE fact-finding team investigated the forced eviction of some 3 000 persons and the subsequent destruction of their homes in the Cpatage community in Dakar, which occurred on 14 September 2002. The community Chief, who attended a housing rights training session organised by the COHRE Africa Programme, reported that there had been no consultation and no alternative housing or land provided. To date, the evictees have yet to be resettled or compensated. A full report will be issued by COHRE in early 2003. • During September 2002, the communities of Bignona, Diamaguene and Nolive were all demolished. A total of 1 223 persons were rendered homeless. According to a COHRE fact-finding team, no resettlement or compensation has been offered to the victims. • In February 2001, 1 200 residents of the Brarka community on the outskirts of Dakar were forcibly evicted. According the a COHRE fact-finding team, the residents were not consulted and no compensation has been forthcoming. ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: Yes

20 The Guardian, 5000 Residents Face Eviction (9 May 2001). 21 This Day, Thrown Into Homelessness (9 April 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

SIERRA LEONE • According to Amnesty International, large numbers of civilians were displaced from districts in Northern Province, particularly in the Bombali and Koinadugu districts, to areas near Freetown. Indiscriminate bombing by security forces accounted for much of the displacement and destruction of homes.22 • Until the end of May 2001, Guinean security forces mounted aerial military operations and ground-troop incursions across the border into Sierra Leone, particularly in Kambia District in the Northern Province. These attacks were reported to be largely indiscriminate in nature and resulted in heavy destruction of civilian property including housing. Forces of the Revolutionary United Front also carried out severe human rights abuses in the area, resulting in additional displacement and housing destruction. Some 30 000 persons were displaced due to the violence.23 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

SOMALIA • A significant proportion of Bossasso District’s population lives in the urban areas and is involved in business activities. However, the high number of IDPs in Bossasso town and its environs, as well the urban poor, struggle to meet their daily needs. They are engaged in casual labour such as portering, house-help activities, garbage collection and begging. The IDPs are repeatedly evicted by the original owners of the plots they have settled on and consequently incur high costs for their movements.24 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

SOUTH AFRICA • Iafrica.com reported that a private security company moved in at Bredell informal settlement near Johannesburg and started demolishing shacks erected by the squatters at the centre of a political row involving land ownership in South Africa. 702 Talk Radio reported that about 200 security guards were deployed on the tract of land at Bredell. On radio, the security guards could be heard hastily bringing down the shacks. Eyewitness News reporter Nikiwe Bikitsha said the guards were destroying empty shacks. The remaining squatters, who had defied a court order to move out of the area by that day and held on to hopes of a stay of evacuation, were gathered in another part of the settlement which remained untouched by the guards. The South Africa Council of Churches (SACC) (led by Bishop Mvume Dandala), the Pan Africanist Congress and the Land Affairs Ministry had hoped that ongoing negotiations might result in a grace period being granted to the squatters, to enable them to find alternative accommodation. 22 Amnesty International, World Report 2002: Sierra Leone, London: AI (2002). 23 Amnesty International, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone: A human rights crisis for refugees and the internally displaced, London: AI (2001). 24 Global IDP Project, Bossasso IDPs evicted from their plots by original owners (May 2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

The squatters initially numbered around 5 000 and paid R25 to the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) for the land. The PAC acted without the Government’s consent and was a respondent, along with the squatters, in an application brought by the Government against the squatters. The Pretoria High Court, however, ordered that the squatters vacate the area within 48 hours. The incident highlighted the government’s apparent failure to deliver housing and land seven years after the transition to democracy.25 • Two men were arrested during the eviction of about 200 Limpopo families who squatted on land earmarked for low-cost housing development. More than 20 police officers were deployed to Desmond Park near Bochum to ensure Blouberg municipality officials could demolish shacks without interference. Confrontation broke out between police and squatters and the two men were arrested, clearing the way for municipality officials to take to the shacks with hammers and crowbars. The squatters moved onto the land at the end of last year after a splinter group from the local South African National Civics Organisation (Sanco) encouraged them to move from an allocated area about 500 metres away.26 ICESCR: No ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: Yes

SUDAN A group of men came to our home. They burned the village down. I left everything behind and ran. Too many people were killed. I lost my aunt and my grandmother. Me and my children have lived at the mercy of friends and relatives, sometimes on the streets, ever since. - Evicted and displaced woman, Sudan.

In Sudan, the war has never been merely a north-south or Muslim-Christian conflict. Armed opposition groups, including Muslim rebel factions, have sprung up in virtually every part of the country. Sudan’s intractable civil war is fundamentally a struggle over resources and how the country’s wealth should be shared. Southern Sudan is rich in oil and water, while the North is largely desert. Egypt has a stake in the free flow of the Nile River through Sudan, while Western countries are keenly interested in Sudan’s oil reserves, estimated at between 800 million and 4 billion barrels. Fighting is now most intense around the oil fields, where numerous villages have been destroyed or abandoned. Between January and April 2001 alone, 150 000 to 300 000 civilians were forcibly evicted and displaced from this region.27 • The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan reported in 2001 that the Government was resorting to forced eviction of local populations and the destruction of villages to depopulate areas and allow for oil operations to proceed unimpeded.28 25 26 27 28

Iafrica.com (12 July 2001); see also Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Developments: South Africa, in World Report 2002, New York: HRW (2002). African Eye News Service, Two Arrested During Eviction of Squatters (19 March 2002). Amnesty International-U.S.A., Sudan: Mixing Oil and Blood in Amnesty Now, New York: AI-USA (Summer 2002). United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Sudan, Statement to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (29 March 2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• In the contested oil-rich areas of the Upper Nile and Southern Blue Nile, tens of thousands of inhabitants were displaced by government and rebel forces. Often their houses and crops were destroyed in order to keep them from returning.29 • In May and June 2001, Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army attacks on the government-controlled towns of Raga and Deim Zubeir in Bahr-el-Ghazal resulted in the forced eviction and displacement of up to 50 000 persons. Many fled to Southern Darfur, a region already affected by drought. Others remained in surrounding areas, at risk of bombings and attacks. In October, in a government counter-offensive, the air force bombed Mangayath, halting international aid deliveries to 20 000 displaced people, forcing them to flee again.30 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

SWAZILAND • Reuters reported that, in June 2001, villagers in eastern Swaziland were forcibly evicted for not swearing allegiance to King Mswati’s elder brother.31 ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

UGANDA • A combined force of Special Police Constables (SPC) and court bailiffs evicted residents from the Kabalagala slum on the morning of 31 August 2001. One woman was shot dead as they forcefully removed her and her neighbours. The woman was trying to shield her daughter from gunfire when an SPC officer shot her three times in the chest, stomach and face. The eviction stemmed from a court order allowing authorities to remove and demolish 23 so-called “illegal” structures. Some 100 residents were displaced.32 • New Vision reported that the Kiboga Assistant Resident District Commissioner, Mr Deus Mutakirwa, had ordered the eviction of hundreds of people encroaching on forest reserves in the district. Mutakirwa told district leaders on Monday that they should invoke the law and evict encroachers from forest reserves because they were a threat to the environment.33 • As reported by FIAN (FoodFirst Information Action Network), on 18 August, 2001, the Government of Uganda deployed the army which brutally evicted 2 041 persons (constituting 392 families) living in Naluwondwa. Their houses were demolished, properties destroyed and staple crops such as cassava and potatoes taken away. 29 30 31 32 33

Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Sudan, London: AI (2002). Id. Reuters, Monday 11 June 2001. Africa News Service, Inc. (31 August 2001). New Vision, Assistant RDC Orders Eviction (14 May 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

This piece of land was sold to a German firm that claimed to have concluded a land deal with the Government. The victims now live in makeshift houses in Kyengeza Forest under devastating conditions: there is no food, water, proper shelter, or medication. Five people have so far lost their lives due to the appalling living conditions.34 • In May 2002, over 2 000 persons were forcibly evicted from over 200 houses in the villages of Muziranduuru and Ikoba in Kiranfumbi Sub-county, Haima District. After the evictions, their modest grass huts were set on fire and destroyed. The residents were rendered homeless but sought shelter at Hoima Public Primary School while the Government sought to locate land on which they could settle. The group, 90 per cent of whom are Bakiga, were evicted pursuant to court orders after a complainant, Herbert Kimera, won the land-dispute case which had been in court for years.35 Notwithstanding the court order, the fact that the residents were rendered homeless, in and of itself, is a violation of international human rights law. • A month earlier, in April 2002, over 4 000 persons, again 90 per cent of them Bakiga, were forcibly evicted from several villages in the sub-counties of Kabwoya and Kirirandumbi in Hoima District. Over 1 000 grass huts were burned and destroyed during the evictions and Hoima Deputy Resident District Commissioner Enock Ngategire said over 2 400 goats belonging to the victims were stolen during the eviction, which lasted for over two hours. The residents were rendered homeless.36 • On 17 May 2002, several persons were forcibly evicted from their homes in Jambula-Bukesa parish in Old Kampala. After the residents attempted to resist the evictions, police fired guns to disperse the crowd. Several residents and police officers suffered injuries in the melee and eight residents were arrested.37 • One day earlier, on 16 May 2002, over 50 persons in Katwe II Parish, Makindye Division, were left homeless after court brokers demolished their houses. Residents said they were surprised when strange men demolished their structures. Hussein Mutebi, the area LCII chairperson, said the men, who numbered over 10, were acting on behalf of Brittania Company, which had a financial dispute with the owner of the property. The residents, many of them children, were rendered homeless.38 • In April 2002, 300 families were forcibly evicted from their homes and lands in and around Mount Elgon National Park in Wanale sub-county, Mbale District, where they had lived for over forty years. The evictions, mounted by park rangers, left local residents without shelter and food as their houses were destroyed and crops cut down. The desperate victims, who lacked any other place to go, moved to the neighbouring villages where they now dwell in caves and mosques. The evictions, which started in Wanale sub-county, spread to neighbouring areas, with 550 additional families evicted in Buluganya and Bumasifa sub-counties in Sironko District.39 More people in the sub-counties of Bufumbo and Busano also faced a similar threat.40 Further evictions were ultimately halted when on 17 April 2002 Edward Rugumayo, the Minister of Trade, Tourism and Industry, directed the Uganda Wildlife Authority to stop evictions of people living in the park.41

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

FIAN (10 December 2001). New Vision, Government Needs Land to Resettle 2 000 (28 May 2002). New Vision, Hoima Cops Raze Huts, Evict 4 000 (30 April 2002). New Vision, Eight Arrested (21 May 2002). New Vision, Katwe Houses Razed (20 May 2002). New Vision, Elgin Park Ejects 550 Families (25 March 2002). New Vision, Evicted Wanale Residents Now Live in Caves, Mosques (15 April 2002). New Vision, Wildlife Authority Ordered to Stop Mount Elgon Eviction (17 April 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• Some 150 families were forcibly evicted from Malukhu ward in Mbale municipality on 13 March 2002. The evictions were carried out by Oyugi Court bailiffs and administrative police without a court order. During the eviction, a six-month-old child was hit by a brick and injured. Other residents said their chickens and ducks were killed. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, James Wapakhabulo, condemned the illegal eviction, saying that the landowner and the Court brokers who effected the eviction should be arrested and prosecuted. He directed that the police look for Oyugi Court bailiffs, who were to explain how they effected the eviction without a court order.42 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

ZIMBABWE • The Zimbabwe Independent reported that the government of President Mugabe continued to encourage illegal occupations of, and forced evictions from, large farms without compensation. By 15 June 2001, it has been estimated, such occupations had affected over 2 000 farms, often with the owners and workers being forcibly evicted.43 Dr John Makumbe of Crisis in Zimbabwe said the desperate situation on commercial farms had been deliberately created by the Zanu PF government in its grim bid to hold on to power. He said about 150 000 Zimbabwean farm workers were now homeless and jobless due to the government-sanctioned evictions of thousands of commercial farmers.44 As of 18 October 2002, the number of farm workers evicted from their land had risen to 250 000.45 With an average family size of six for each farm worker, these evictions have rendered an estimated 1 500 000 persons homeless. Makumbe lamented the fact that thousands of children of the displaced farm workers would not be able to continue with their lessons at their former farm schools because of the haphazard evictions. He said the government should have allocated land to the farm workers affected by the evictions. • It was reported by Amnesty International in 2002 that there were numerous and consistent reports of forced evictions throughout 2001. In Mashonaland West Province, for example, some 7 000 farm workers were reported to have been forcibly evicted from their homes in August alone. Additionally, the police evicted some 1 000 squatters from a farm belonging to a wealthy, British, long-standing supporter of ZANU-PF.46 • The Zimbabwe Homeless Peoples’ Federation reported the forced eviction of hundreds of families and the destruction of their homes in and around the Zimbabwean capital, Harare. These actions were taken following a resolution of the Harare Municipal Council. These actions directly violate Zimbabwe’s legal obligations under its Constitution as well as international law, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Zimbabwe ratified in 1991. The resolution calls for further forced evictions and destruction of homes. Indeed, one member of the Council, which has no mandate from the people as it was simply

42 43 44 45 46

The Monitor, 150 Families Evicted in Mbale (14 March 2002); New Vision, Wapakhabulo Irked By Malukhu Eviction (18 March 2002). Zimbabwe Independent, Mugabe Getting the Reputation He Deserves (15 June 2001). The Daily News (16 August 2002). The Daily News, 250 000 Farm Workers Jobless After Land Grab (18 October 2002). Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Zimbabwe, London: AI (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

appointed by the Minister of Local Government, has been quoted as saying: “Our resolution to demolish ‘illegal’ structures still stands and we are not going to stop at anything. The Commission has no sympathy for whoever violates the by-laws and is going heavy-handed on such issues.” Over 500 000 Harare residents stand to lose their homes if the Council continues its policy of forcibly evicting residents and demolishing their homes. • Since 26 April 2002, about 1 300 farm workers and their families were sleeping in the open near Rainham Farm in Dzivaresekwa Extension, Harare, after they were forcibly evicted by so-called war veterans. At Rainham Farm, a group of Zanu PF youths, who had taken over the farm, evicted the farm workers and their families from their homes on Friday 26 April, and did not allow them to remove their property. Another 147 workers similarly evicted from two farms in Marondera were also sleeping in the open, 127 of them at Coronation Park and the remainder at Cleveland Dam, both in Msasa, Harare. An additional 120 farm workers were forcibly evicted from Chakadenga Farm.47 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No African Charter: Yes Constitution: No

The Americas ARGENTINA Structural adjustment policies and foreign debt, particularly as linked to agreements with the International Monetary Fund, have devastated the Argentine economy. The structural adjustment policies have had a particularly devastating effect on the Government of Argentina’s ability to fulfil its economic and social rights obligations, including its obligation to fulfil the right to adequate housing. Presently, one third of Argentina’s GDP goes to debt payments, one third to pensions, and the remaining third to social programmes including housing, education and health care. Severe cuts in such programmes continue to be pushed through, and the circumstances have already resulted in the eviction of thousands of persons who can no longer afford their rents. • On 12 June 2002, some 250 families were forcibly evicted from their homes in Lomas de Zamora, a workingclass suburb in Buenos Aires. These evictions were carried out with severe violence throughout the day, including the use of rubber bullets, tear gas, attack dogs and bulldozing of dwellings. The evictees resisted their forced eviction with the help of growing networks of human rights advocates and organisations such as Polo Obrero and the Bloque Piquetero Nacional, which pool legal and other resources for the defence of those facing evictions.48 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes 47 The Daily News, Farm Workers Thrown Out Into the Open (29 April 2002). 48 The Guardian, Argentine Workers Fight Back: Report from Buenos Aires (19 June 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

BRAZIL Caught in an ambush, Xucuru chief Francisco de Assis Santana, also known as Chico Quelé, was killed on 23 April 2001. He was shot twice with a 12-gauge shotgun, in Pesquerira, Pernambuco state. Chico Quelé was on his way to meet members of FUNAI (the government indigenous peoples’ office) to discuss the indemnity payments to be made to local landowners whose land was to be demarcated as indigenous land. On 9 July 2001, José Pinheiro Lima was killed, with his wife and 15-year-old son, by two gunmen in their house near the town of Marabá, in the south of Pará. He was a leading member of the rural workers trade union in Marabá which had been acting for 120 families whose legal right to unfarmed land was being contested by a local landowner. - Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Brazil, London: AI (2002)

Land disputes and evictions continued in Brazil, a nation that has one of the most concentrated land-ownership structures in the world. The Government’s last agricultural census of 1985, carried out by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), showed that 1.2 per cent of landowners own nearly 42 per cent of the land, while 53 per cent of farmers own only 1.2 per cent of cultivated land.49 In terms of the size of land plots, a more recent report from the then Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso’s office showed that large land holdings of over 1 000 hectares occupy 50 per cent of the cultivated land. By contrast, small and medium holdings of fewer than 100 hectares occupy only 17.9 per cent of the cultivated land.50 Such an unequal land distribution often motivates many of Brazil’s 5 million landless families51 to illegally occupy areas to protest against the fact that 90 per cent of Brazil’s land belongs to the wealthiest 20 per cent of the population.52 Far from being merely a rural question, the lack of availability of land pushes thousand of Brazilians to urban areas, where many of them live in cardboard or tin shacks (barracos) in Brazil’s shantytowns known as favelas. Low-income Brazilians may also choose to live in cortiços, collective multi-family buildings. The conditions within cortiços are usually unsanitary and the dwellings are often crumbling and unstable. Each family lives in a room (cômodo) which measures at maximum four by two metres; they must share the bathroom and laundry area. Residents often form large lines to use the scarce bathrooms, and drug trafficking is common around these areas.53 • According to Amnesty International, in 2001 land activists suffered harassment and attacks at the hands of military police carrying out evictions. Such violence was particularly prevalent in the southern part of the State of Pará, where private security forces often take part in evictions and other abuses.54

49 Cited in Amnesty International, Brazil: The Criminalization of Rural Activism: The Case of Frei Anastácio Ribeiro, AI-index: AMR 19/027/1996 (1 October 1996). 50 Presidência da República, Governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso Agrarian Reform in Brazil 1997, p. 56. Source: Instituto Nacional de Colonizacion y Reforma Agraria (INCRA). Cited in Amnesty International, Brazil: Corumbiara and Eldorado de Carajás: Rural Violence, Police Brutality and Impunity, AI-index: AMR 23/006/1997 (2 January 1997). 51 Cited in AP Worldstream, Landless peasants invade 15 ranches in northeastern Brazil, (2 April 1999). 52 BBC News, Brazil Jails Police Peasant Killers, (18 August, 2000). 53 Vera Fontes, Centro Gaspar Garcia de Direitos Humanos, São Paulo, E-mail to COHRE International Secretariat (5 July 2001). 54 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Brazil, London: AI (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• On 30 November 2002, the Governor of the State of São Paulo decided to forcibly evict 5 000 otherwise homeless persons who had been squatting in the City of Osasco. While campaigning for office, the Governor entered into negotiations with the affected persons and originally promised a peaceful resolution to their plight, as well as resettlement. After taking office, however, the Governor used security forces to violently evict the squatters.55 • On 10 December 2002 (International Human Rights Day) 2 200 persons were forcibly evicted by the State of São Paulo from the Carlos Lamarca settlement in the City of Guarulhos. The Mayor of Guarulhos tried to intervene on behalf of the evictees, but was overruled by the State Government. The evictees were resettled in the distant suburb of Aracília, in an area with no urban infrastructure.56 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

CANADA In Canada, many evictions occur in the private sector as a result of landlords bringing an Application to Evict cause of action against the tenant. Applications to Evict do provide tenants with some degree of due process and therefore are not considered per se forced evictions as defined in international law. Yet, notwithstanding the protections against arbitrary eviction found in the Applications to Evict process, any evictions, even those otherwise deemed legitimate, contravene international law if they render the evictees homeless. In addition to private Applications to Evict, many persons are evicted due to public policy decisions such as those dealing with urban renewal projects and public infrastructure construction. Again, if those policies result in evictions that render the respective evictees homeless, those policies violate international law. The following are just some examples of unlawful evictions that occurred in Canada from the beginning of 2001 to the end of 2002. • According to the Independent Media Center, several persons were forcibly evicted from a building at 246 Gilmore in Ottawa, Ontario on 3 July 2002, leaving 12 persons homeless.57 The occupants had occupied the house as a means of protesting against homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. There were reports that police used force in carrying out the eviction, although all the occupants remained passive.

55 Movement of Homeless Workers from Osasco (December 2002). 56 Information received from the Municipal Government of the City of Guarulhos. 57 Independent Media Center, Cops Evict Occupants of 246 Gilmore, It Is Once Again Abandoned, Ottawa: IMC (3 July 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• On 24 September 2002, some 100 persons, including children, were evicted from a “Tent City” in Toronto where they had been living for a number of years. The evictions, carried out on behalf of Home Depot corporation, resulted in several persons being rendered homeless. No warning was provided by the City Police who supervised the eviction, carried out by security personnel hired by Home Depot. Many had originally moved to the Tent City as a result of the lack of affordable housing in the Toronto area.58 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: No Constitution: Yes

CHILE • ENDESA, the largest private company in Chile, is constructing six hydroelectric dams on the Rio Biobío. The first of these, Pangue, was completed in 1996. ENDESA is now constructing Ralco, the largest of the Biobío dams. Ralco will be a 155-meter-high dam with a 3 400 hectare reservoir. More than 600 persons, including 400 indigenous Pehuenches, have been evicted and displaced. The dam, it is estimated, will eventually displace 200 000 persons. Families relocated to the El Huachi and El Barco areas have publicly denounced ENDESA’s failure to honour its commitments to them in exchange for their land. Complaints mention their livestock’s miserable condition during the heavy winter snows, lack of technical assistance, shortage of firewood and failure to build a medical post. The dam will eventually flood over 70 km of the river valley, inundating the richly diverse forest and its wildlife.59 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

COLOMBIA In 2002 the fragile cease-fire agreement and peace talks finally collapsed and the country was once again thrown into violent conflict, leading to further turmoil and devastation. To date, the conflict between the Colombian armed forces, left-wing guerrilla groups, and right-wing paramilitary organisations has generated what Catherine Bertini, executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme, refers to as “the biggest humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere.” With the election of President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, who has ties with right-wing paramilitary groups, and increased support from the United States, it is feared that the situation in Colombia will only grow worse.60

58 Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario . 59 International Rivers Network, IRN’s Bio-Bio Campaign (2001). 60 For example, Human Rights Watch has reported that, during his campaign, Uribe kept as a close adviser Gen. (ret.) Rito Alejo del Río, who was fired in 1999 by President Andrés Pastrana for his alleged support of paramilitary groups while in command of the Seventeenth Brigade in Antioquia between 1995 and 1997, when he worked closely with the then Governor Uribe.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

Forced evictions and forced displacement occur not only in the context of the armed conflict, but also due to transnational corporations, often with the support of the Government, which continue policies aimed at depopulating resource-rich areas of the Colombian countryside. This is particularly the case with respect to oil and gas exploration companies such as Occidental Petroleum which have worked to clear populations from oil and gas-rich areas. The years 2001-2002 were especially brutal for the displaced, particularly after cease-fire agreements failed. The Consultancy on Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES) reported that around 353 120 persons were forced to leave their homes between January and October 2001 due to threats from one armed group or another – a daily average of 1 623 newly displaced persons. • According to Amnesty International, over 300 000 persons were forcibly evicted and displaced in Colombia during 2001. For instance, in the south of the country, intensification of the conflict and human rights abuses led to large-scale forced eviction and displacement in areas in which US-funded anti-narcotics battalions were operating. There were also reports that, during the first few months of 2001, at least 7 000 persons had fled Putumayo Department to Ecuador and another 8 000 were constructively evicted and internally displaced as a result of Plan Colombia fumigations and military operations by both sides in the conflict. 61 • Human Rights Watch confirmed that over 300 000 persons in Colombia had been forcibly evicted and displaced in 2001, the highest number ever in a single year.62 • Intercor, then a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Exxon Mobile Corporation, with the assistance of 500 Colombian military and 200 police personnel, forcibly evicted scores of residents of the Afro-Colombian community of Tabaco in the province of La Guajira, Colombia, on 9 August 2001, in order to facilitate expansion of South America’s biggest coal strip mine, Cerrejon Norte. During the forced eviction, some of the inhabitants of Tabaco were beaten with clubs. Some of those whose houses were demolished were sick, including children. One of the women said that a man’s head was badly beaten with a wooden club and his daughter, who was trying to help her father, was also attacked by the police, who beat her leg with wooden clubs. Intercor demolished 29 houses and destroyed the surrounding fruit orchards and gardens, confiscated the residents’ possessions, and injured several of those who tried to resist. They eventually stopped due to resistance from the community, but returned on 9 December 2001, again assisted by police forces, and bulldozed the remaining houses.63 Residents had been resisting eviction and trying to hold out for an adequate relocation package which would allow the whole community to stay together and move to a new site where they could continue to practice small-scale agriculture. The relocation arrangements offered by the company would have broken up the community and did not provide sufficient funds to buy land on which to live – the result would be poverty and unemployment in nearby towns, already swollen with people displaced by Colombia’s internal war.64

61 62 63 64

Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Colombia, London: AI (2002). Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Developments: Colombia, in World Report 2002, New York: HRW (2002). Mines and Communities Action, Colombia: Exxon subsidiary Intercor attacks community at Tabaco again (2001). Id.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• On 21 February 2002, police evicted some 60 families from the wooden slums in Rio Abajo known as Boca Town. In the course of the eviction three buildings burned down while the riot squad kept the residents at bay. Some of the displaced people said that the police had set the fire, either intentionally or as a consequence of one of the tear-gas grenades they fired into the premises.65 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

CUBA • Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both reported in 2002 that, “although the number of ‘prisoners of conscience’ has decreased significantly from past years, dissidents are still being targeted both by state officials and government supporters”. Alternatives to imprisonment which have been used to punish and harass dissidents include eviction.66 For example, Rafael León Rodríguez, coordinator of the Proyecto Demócrata Cubano (Cuban Democratic Project) one of the organizations belonging to the Mesa de Reflexión de la Oposición Moderada (Table of Reflection of the Moderate Opposition) was reportedly evicted from his home in July 2001 following an apparent bureaucratic error. In spite of protests, the home and belongings of Rafael León Rodríguez had not been returned to him by the end of that year.67 ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No American Convention: No Constitution: Yes

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC • According to Ciudad Alternativa, persons have been forcibly evicted on numerous occasions on behalf of government officials or military officers who desire the land on which the evictees resided. For the most part, these forced evictions have occurred outside the city of Santo Domingo. Other persons have been forcibly evicted to make way for State development projects, particularly those related to the tourism industry and situated near the airport zone. In such cases, Government forces including the police have carried out forced evictions. ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

65 The Panama News, Vol. 8, No. 4 (23 February – 8 March 2002). 66 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Cuba, London: AI (2002); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2002: Cuba, New York: HRW (2002). 67 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Cuba, London: AI (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

ECUADOR • In 2002, Amnesty International reported that unidentified armed groups from Colombia, as well as Colombian security forces, had crossed into Ecuador and carried out activities which led to the displacement of indigenous persons.68 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

EL SALVADOR • Eighty landless families who had been occupying a 210-hectare parcel of Government-owned land near the municipality of Puerto El Triunfo, Usulután Province, were forcibly evicted on 30 April 2001. During the eviction, five women, eight men and three children were beaten, and a month later remained detained in the National Civil Police quarter at Usulután. The families were using non-violent action as a means of pressuring the Government to implement its agrarian reform legislation, which stipulates that fallow Government-owned agricultural land should be transferred to landless peasant families.69 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

GUATEMALA • In 2002, it was reported that former member of Guatemala’s right-wing civil defence patrols forcibly evicted eighty families and burned down their homes in the community of Los Cimientos, in the Department of Quiche. It is thought that this violence was in the context of preparations for Plan Puebla Panama (see “Mexico” in Section 3 below).70 • On Wednesday 4 July 2001, some 2 500 people were forcibly evicted from the municipality of San Miguel Petapa, Guatemala. Although the former residents received no compensation, the Government provided some land for rebuilding. The ownership of the new land was in doubt, however, which might result in the families facing further eviction.71 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

68 69 70 71

Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Ecuador, London: AI (2002). FoodFirst Information Action Network (FIAN) (15 May 2001). Rights Action (19 July 2002). Frente de Pobladores de Guatemala (13 July 2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

HONDURAS • On the morning of 19 April 2001, families of the peasant co-operative ‘La Morazán’, situated in the hamlet of Quebrada de Yoro, municipality of El Progreso, Department of Yoro, were forcibly evicted by the National Police. The forced eviction was carried out pursuant to an order of the Court of El Progreso. During the forced eviction, Antonio Aranda, Antonio Avila, Cornelio García and José Antunez, all members of the co-operative, were arrested. The police later occupied the land as a means of keeping the peasants from returning. Although the cooperative had been cultivating the land for 20 years, after receiving it in the framework of agrarian reform, it was the second violent eviction of the year. On 19 January 2001, families were forcibly evicted and saw their houses and crops destroyed.72 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

JAMAICA • In the pre-dawn hours of 27 June 2001, several persons were forcibly evicted from the Roaring River property near St. Ann, Jamaica. According to the Jamaica Observer, 28 homes were subsequently demolished, which prompted protesters to block the main road between Ocho Rios and St. Ann’s Bay. Police were called in and several persons were reported injured in the ensuing melee. Shahine Robinson, newly elected Member of Parliament for North East St. Ann was among those allegedly injured by the police. Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, responsible for the UDC, ordered an investigation into the forced evictions, state relief for the evictees including relocation, and the establishment of guidelines for the removal of squatters.73 A year later, however, the evictees still had not been relocated as promised. After Member of Parliament Shahine Robinson urged the administration to honour its commitment to relocate persons who were subject to “systematic abuse and degrading treatment” and who, in her view, continued to live in “less than desirable circumstances,” the Housing Ministry issued a statement that the affected persons should be relocated to nearby Beecher Town by the end of August 2002. An official of the National Housing Development Corporation warned, however, that only persons who had been residing in the parish for over six months would be selected for relocation to Beecher Town and that persons who had recently moved into squatter settlements in various parts of St. Ann would ultimately face eviction.74 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No American Convention: Yes Constitution: No

72 73 74

FoodFirst Information Action Network (FIAN) (30 April 2001). Jamaica Observer, Jamaica House Gets Roaring River Report (19 July 2001). Jamaica Observer, Beecher Town Lands for Evicted Roaring River Squatters (28 June 2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

NICARAGUA • On 19 April 2001, eight families (27 children and 19 adults) were violently evicted from their homes near the Colegio Cristo Rey area in the capital city of Managua. Fifty officers of the Anti-insurgence Police Brigade, together with 20 contracted civilians, evicted the families, all of whom had lived there for 20 years. Despite the fact that the residents did not have title and refused a resettlement package, unnecessary force was applied. The police broke down doors, attacked residents, and then proceeded to dismantle and ultimately destroy the homes. Gonzalo Carrón, representative of the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights (CENIDH) explained that “when the judges ordered an eviction, they did not order the destruction of the homes, because this action goes beyond the judicial mandate. They destroyed the little those families had.”75 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes American Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA In the United States of America, many evictions occur in the private sector as a result of landlords bringing an Unlawful Detainer cause of action against the tenant. Unlawful Detainer actions do provide tenants with some degree of due process and therefore are not considered per se forced evictions as defined in international law. Notwithstanding the protections against arbitrary evictions that Unlawful Detainer actions provide, however, any eviction, even if otherwise deemed legitimate, contravenes international law if it renders the evictee homeless. In addition to private Unlawful Detainer actions, many persons are evicted due to public policy decisions such as those dealing with urban renewal projects, public infrastructure construction or drug-law property forfeiture penalties. Again, if those policies result in evictions that render the respective evictees homeless, those policies violate international law. In any event, the lack of affordable housing in the United States, compounded by gentrification, employment that does not provide a liveable wage, and the above-mentioned public policies have all contributed to incredibly large numbers of persons being evicted, as well as to the problem of homelessness. A 1999 study by The Urban Institute found that at least 2.3 million adults and children in the United States are likely to experience a spell of homelessness at least once during a year. The study highlighted that as many as half of all homeless adults become homeless because they are evicted or experience some other problem with the landlord or with paying their rent.76 Several studies show that providing legal assistance or legal representation to a tenant in eviction proceedings greatly increases the likelihood that the tenant can win the case or reach an agreement with the landlord.77 Such legal assistance, however, is rarely provided free of charge, and therefore most potential evictees cannot acquire adequate legal assistance and representation.

75 Juan Ignacio Rosales, Violento Desalojo a Ocho Familias, Managua: La Prensa (20 April 2001). 76 Burt, Martha R., et al., Homeless Programs and the People They Serve, Washington DC: The Urban Institute (1999). 77 See, e.g., ibid., Pew Partnership, Thriving Neighborhoods, Richmond: Pew Charitable Trust (2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

The following are general statistics on the intersection of evictions and homelessness as well as some examples of evictions, including unlawful evictions, that have occurred in the United States from 1998 to 2000. • The United States Supreme Court upheld a “zero-tolerance” federal law which allowed housing authorities to evict tenants for alleged criminal activity by the tenants or their associates, regardless of the tenants’ fault, knowledge, or ability to control the activity. The evictions occur even if the tenant is rendered homeless. The case involved the eviction of four elderly persons from public housing in California, none of whom knew of, or should have known of, the criminal activity in question. Indeed, some diligently took measures to try to ensure that no criminal activity took place on the premises. For example, one tenant was evicted because her granddaughter, who lived with the elderly tenant, smoked one marijuana cigarette miles away from the apartment complex. The grandmother periodically searched her granddaughter’s room for signs of drug activity and warned her of the consequences of drug use. Another evicted tenant, an elderly and disabled man, was evicted after his health-care provider carried drugs onto the premises.78 • The United States also has numerous informal settlements, often constructed by persons who would otherwise be homeless. People living in informal settlements in the United States have virtually no recognized housing rights and thus are often evicted. For instance, the Las Vegas Review – Journal reported on 26 June 2001 that 80 homeless persons had been ordered evicted from an encampment north of the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. The eviction was precipitated by an order from the City of Las Vegas Neighborhood Services Department demanding that land owners clear “all vagrant camps” or face criminal charges.79 The evictees who made the tent city their home agreed to leave, but many did not know where they would be staying thereafter. They said the city has failed to provide them a reasonable alternative, especially because area homeless shelters are running at capacity. Kendall Wiley, an officer in the Police Department’s Homeless Evaluation Liaison Program (HELP), said that even though the campers had been given warning, she worried they would not be as safe roaming the streets. The HELP program started in 1992 as a way to deal with the law-abiding homeless. “I see a few smaller camps growing over an open lot by the Clark County building,” Wiley said. “They are dispersing into smaller groups, where they potentially will be more victimized. Here at the tracks they had safety in numbers — more safety than if they were by themselves on the street.”80 • Similarly, in 2001, the City of Portland, Oregon carried out evictions of some 25 otherwise homeless persons who built an encampment known as Dignity Village. The evictions were carried out by the city pursuant to a nocamping ordinance, notwithstanding a court order against the ordinance in question. Portland, Oregon has some 600 beds available for an estimated 3 000 homeless persons.81

78 79 80 81

See Rucker v. Davis, No. 00-1770, 00-1781 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2002); 237 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2001); 222 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2000). Las Vegas Review – Journal, Police tell about 80 encamped north of downtown to leave by Friday, 26 June 2001. Id. See Oregon Live, Camp Dignity is no indignity, it’s an answer (27 January 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• In the United States and elsewhere, domestic violence often results in the ‘constructive’ eviction of the victim. (Constructive eviction occurs when living conditions are made unbearable for the resident and he/she feels compelled to leave). Domestic violence is the most common and least reported crime in the United States. According to Women-Based Domestic Violence Services, a woman is battered by her husband, boyfriend or live-in partner every nine seconds. Men are also victims of domestic violence. In addition to physical and psychological damage, domestic violence has other consequences. Statistics show that 50 per cent of homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence.82 For example, after getting out of the hospital in Seaside, Oregon, a victim of domestic violence was given a 24-hour eviction notice by her landlord after she showed the manager a restraining order against her husband and asked that his name be removed from the lease. The landlord, CBM Group of California, had a “zero tolerance” policy against persons threatening or inflicting personal injury on other tenants, which it used to justify the eviction not only of the perpetrator but of the victim as well.83 ICESCR: No ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No American Convention: No Constitution: No

Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East AFGHANISTAN “My greatest wish is to be happy, to learn to read and write, to have warm shoes and eat as much as I want to. I want to return home.” - Ahmad Hussein, 12-year-old internally displaced Afghan child.

• The United States bombing campaign in Afghanistan had reportedly displaced an estimated 1.1 million persons as of March 2002.84 For instance, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan reported in 2002 that significant numbers of persons had been displaced from their homes in Afghan cities due to the bombing campaign and that much of the civilian housing stock had been destroyed.85 In another example, the village of Shomoli lost 3 000 homes, rendering 21 000 homeless.86 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: No

82 83 84 85 86

Free Speech Radio News, Domestic Violence and Evictions (15 November 2001). Pacifica Radio, Free Speech Radio News, Court Challenge To Eviction Of Domestic Abuse Survivor (12 July 2001). United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/43 (6 March 2002). United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

BANGLADESH • In Dhaka, during the period of the ‘Caretaker Government’ (July to October 2001), over 12 000 families were evicted in the name of ‘cleansing the city of criminal elements.’87 • At least 75 slum areas were demolished in the early hours on 12 August 2001, near Shahjahanpur Railway Colony in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Also in Dhaka, the fourth phase of evictions by the Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority commenced. The Authority’s aim is to remove all settlements – now home to thousands of the poorest urban dwellers – from the banks of the river Buriganga near Dhaka’s river port. Previous evictions by the Authority, who offered no compensation to the victims, saw some 250 structures demolished.88 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: Yes

CAMBODIA • COHRE fact-finding missions to, and reports from, Cambodia found that forced evictions continued in that country throughout 2001 and 2002. For instance, COHRE chronicled 4 777 families that were forcibly evicted in 2001, and received information that uncounted additional families met the same fate in that year. One of the largest forced evictions undertaken in 2001 occurred to make way for the construction of a museum in Chtruv Chanh Va, resulting in the displacement of 170 families. • In 2002, COHRE recorded an additional 4 256 families evicted in Cambodia. These included 641 families evicted in August alone, ostensibly to clean the Steng Mean Chey canal, and another 1 399 families from Dei Kror Horm Basac, who were evicted by their wealthy neighbours. ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: Yes

CHINA Qin Feiyun dices greens with a cleaver in her restaurant, puts an oiled wok on the gas stove and waits for customers who never come. Qin’s family recently joined thousands of people forcibly evicted from their homes in central China in an area that will be flooded by the reservoir of the giant Three Gorges Dam. Dozens of highrise housing projects were built to receive them, but attempts to restart normal life are failing on their broad, empty boulevards. “Nobody here has any money to buy things. The only thing that sells is burglar bars” [for apartment windows], Qin said. It’s a story repeated over and over as the largest resettlement in the history of dam-building speeds up. - AP World Stream (22 January 2002)

87 Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, Urban Cleansing in Dhaka (April 2002). 88 The Independent (Dhaka) (13 August 2001); United News of Bangladesh (23 August 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• Demolition of centuries-old cities and villages has begun along the Yangtze River in an area that will eventually be flooded by the world’s largest hydroelectric project, the Three Gorges Dam. Many of the homes are being replaced by rows of white or yellow apartment complexes springing up on hilltops that will soon form the shore of a vast new reservoir. More than 395 000 persons have been moved, and China plans to relocate another 130 000 before closing off the Yangtze in June 2003. All told, 1.9 million persons will be displaced before the reservoir reaches its full length of 663 kilometers (411 miles) in 2009. Most people will be moved to new cities and villages above the reservoir’s shoreline, but 125 000 are to be transplanted to areas as distant as Shanghai and the far western region of Xinjiang.89 Many of those already displaced were not consulted fully and few agreed to be evicted and relocated. Many tell of dysfunctional communities that threaten to become slums under the weight of widespread unemployment and a painful sense of loss. Residents of Shibao, a five-hour boat ride up the Yangtze from Wanzhou, boast that their village of grey-brick homes and shops was founded 1 000 years ago. They complain bitterly that compensation of about 10 000 yuan (US$1.25) per family is not enough to buy a good-sized home in the new housing projects. They also worry about losing the close-knit community along Shibao’s cobblestone streets that has supported them their entire lives. “I don’t want to leave these streets,” said a 48-year-old shopkeeper, “this is my world.”90 • Armed police forced hundreds of Tibetan nuns and monks to leave a Buddhist institute in southwest China, before destroying their homes to prevent them returning. The expulsions at the Serthar (or Wumin) Institute in Ganzi prefecture of Sichuan province began in June 2001. Reports state that over 1 000 dwellings were destroyed. The officials said that the expulsions were necessary due to poor sanitary conditions. However, the diverse mix of nationalities at the institute may have been the real reason for the evictions, coupled with the fact that Beijing considers Tibetan Buddhism a threat to its controversial rule over Tibet.91 • In April 2002, Chinese authorities began the demolition of traditionally-built housing in the historic Barkhor area of Lhasa. The eviction of Tibetans and the demolition of traditional Tibetan housing in Lhasa undermines the Tibetan culture and violates the rights of the Tibetan tenants who were given only five-days notice to evacuate. According to the International Campaign for Tibet, the forced evictions and housing demolition is an attempt by the Chinese to eradicate symbols of Tibetan culture in and around Lhasa.92 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: Yes

89 90 91 92

AP World Stream, China Speeds Up Massive Resettlement Moves for Three Gorges Dam (22 January 2002). Id. Agence France Presse (20 August 2001). International Campaign for Tibet (2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

FIJI • Since the coup of May 2000, according to Amnesty International, thousands of Fijians of ethnic Indian origin, known as Indo-Fijians, have been internally displaced. Indo-Fijians used to make up 44 per cent of the population. Mass emigration is now depleting that figure, thousands having been forced to abandon their homes and farms as a result of racist attacks, evictions and threats of violence.93 • In Fiji, there have been many incidents, highlighted in the media, where the landowners and hired security forces came, forcibly evicted tenants and chased them from their lands, usually with little or no notice. In September 2002, for instance, twenty families were evicted by agents of Rups Industries and rendered homeless.94 • Some 21 500 persons were ‘constructively’ evicted (i.e. they had no choice but to leave) when their housing leases were not renewed. The non-renewal of housing leases has reportedly contributed to Fiji’s growing squatter population.95 ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: Yes

INDIA According to the Indian National Institute of Urban Affairs, nearly 30 million Indians were expected to be living in urban slums in 2001. More than five million people live in slums in Mumbai, nearly the same number in the eastern city of Calcutta, while the national capital, New Delhi, is home to an estimated 600 000 slum families. As democracies, the Indian State Governments might be expected to be wary of relocating slum dwellers for fear of losing the political support of people who make up a sizable chunk of the population of India’s metropolises. Yet in Maharashtra State, for example, many forced evictions of slums dwellers do occur, and resistance is strong because of the lack of relocation schemes or policies for resettling slum residents. This is despite the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act (1986), which, while allowing the State to acquire land for the purpose of public interest through purchase and exchange or by compulsory acquisition, requires the State Government to arrange to provide civic amenities in the area where it re-locates affected persons. In 1999, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) drafted a national slum policy that advocated removal of all “untenable” slums. The definition of what constituted an untenable slum was left out, leaving the forced eviction of slum dwellers open to political expediency. The situation is aggravated by the fact that neither central nor state planning functions have a focused strategy towards tackling the housing or land-related issues in cities.96

93 94 95 96

Amnesty International, Fiji elections eclipsed by racism and impunity, (May 2001). The Fiji Sunday Times, (29 September 2002). The Fiji Sunday Times, (29 September 2002). Minar Pimple and Lysa John Security Of Tenure Policies in Indian Cities: Security Of Tenure - Experience Of Mumbai. Available on-line at: http://users.iafrica.com/i/if/ifasrech/fr/pimple.htm

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

Unfortunately, ending forced evictions does not necessarily translate into providing adequate housing. Gita Dewan Verma, a former consultant to the Indian Government on housing issues, said in The Hindu newspaper, “it is not eviction from squalid conditions that violates the right to decent housing, but conditions which force people to settle in them in the first place.”97 • Some 6 000 families living within the shorelines of the reservoir to be created by the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project in Madhya Pradesh State were issued unlawful eviction notices in 2002 without provision for resettlement as required by law. • Some 90 peasant families, mainly belonging to the Dalit community (formerly known as ‘Untouchables’) from Raipura in Chitrakoot-District of Uttar Pradesh were displaced due to the construction of the Gunta Dam. After the completion of the dam in January 2001, their villages were submerged. They lost both their houses and lands. The compensation from the government was not nearly enough to substitute for their losses. As the peasants were dependent on their land as their major source of livelihood, they are now threatened by hunger and malnutrition. Many males have left the villages in search of job opportunities, the remaining ones are struggling as occasional labourers.98 • On 5 June 2002, the forced eviction began of 150 families who had been residing in the Laxman Singh Chauhan Nagar commuity in Indore, Madhya Pradesh State, for some thirty years. During the evictions, several of the residents were arrested and incarcerated for demonstrating in support of their housing rights. Several other people were injured during the evictions as walls or debris fell on them. Actions are currently underway by housing rights advocates in order to secure alternative land on which the victims can resettle.99 • On 22 July 2002, police forces forcibly evicted residents from the village of Khedi-Balwari, in the District of Dhar, Madhya Pradesh State. According to reports received by the World Organisation Against Torture, about 400 police officers armed with guns and lathis (sticks) entered the village at 4 pm and forcibly evicted the villagers. It is reported that several persons, including children, were severely beaten, that the houses were looted and savings as well as cattle stolen. The eviction of villagers from Khedi-Balwari took place against the background of the undertaking of the Maan Irrigation Project, which is one of the thirty major projects comprising the Narmada Valley Development Projects.100 • Government officials in the Dhar District forcibly evicted hundreds of persons in 2002 in order to make way for the Maan Dam Project.101 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: No

97 The Hindu (12 August 2000). 98 Foodfirst Information Action Network (FIAN), India: Small peasants lose their agricultural land due to dam construction in Raipura, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh (27 June 2002). 99 National Forum for Housing and Land Rights. 100 World Organisation Against Torture, OMCT Appeals, India: forced eviction by the police of a village against the background of the Narmada Valley Development Projects (27 July 2002). 101 Hindustan Times, (6 August 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

INDONESIA With anguish written on her face and the cries of her four-year-old daughter ringing in her ears, Lastri hurriedly wrapped her belongings in a piece of worn-out cloth as she prepared for tomorrow morning, when the Public Order Officers would come to tear down her plywood shack located on the West Flood Canal in Penjaringan, North Jakarta. She cooked a meal, consisting of kangkung (leafy vegetables that grow wild in water) and fish, for her husband and her three children. After dinner, she wrapped up the leftovers for her family’s breakfast, as she knew there would be no time for cooking tomorrow morning. After putting her children to bed that Sunday after midnight, she and her husband fought off their drowsiness and tried to stay awake, as there was a rumour that the Public Order Officers would burn down their home. The next morning, 700 city Public Order Officers arrived at the site. The residents made speeches protesting against the demolition. But even with tears rolling down their faces, they failed to prevent the officers from tearing down the shacks. The officers bulldozed some 600 shacks along the canal that day. - Jakarta Post (12 January 2002)

• During the year 2001, it was reported that in Jakarta alone some 9 774 families, constituting 48 870 individuals, were forcibly evicted.102 • Forced evictions also occurred elsewhere in Indonesia, including Surabaya in West Java. For example, Leaders and Organizers of Community Organization in Asia (LOCOA) reported several forced evictions, without alternative land or housing being provided, during its visit to Surabaya in September 2001. LOCOA also reported that in October 2001 alone, some 2 470 families, or 9 880 persons, were forcibly evicted in Jakarta.103 • COHRE monitored events in Banten Province after local police burned down 67 houses, destroyed crops and arrested 49 peasants in the village of Cibaliung, Pandeglang Regency in November 2001. The peasants’ land had been claimed by the State Forestry Company, Perum Perhutani. Over the past two decades Perum Perhutani had been edging the peasants off their own land and was now finally trying to take over the whole village. Immediately following the evictions, the peasant farmers were taken to the police station where they were interrogated for more than 20 hours without being granted their right to consult a lawyer.104 • In November 2001, officers of the Public Order Agency forcibly evicted thousands of residents, after which they commenced to burn down the entire community located on the banks of Penjaringan Canal in North Jakarta. Of the 15 000 persons residing in the community, only 1 500 remained after the forced evictions. By the end of the year the residents had yet to receive any compensation or alternative land on which to live. 105 • In January 2002, 700 officers of the Jakarta Public Order Agency arrived in the morning and forcibly evicted hundreds of families from their homes built along the West Flood Canal in Penjaringan, North Jakarta. The homes were subsequently destroyed, leaving some 600 families homeless.

102 Uni Sosial Demokrat, Is There Any Hope Left for the Poor under Megawati? (29 December 2001). 103 Leaders and Organizers of Community Organization in Asia, 2001 LOCOA Annual Report (2002). 104 NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty, Indonesia: Peasant families struggle over land and their right to food in Cibaliung village, Pandeglang, Banten Province, Indonesia (22 April 2002). 105 Jakarta Post, City Still Ignoring Victims of Forced Evictions (31 December 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• During the second half of 2001, the Jakarta provincial government, under its ‘Clean Jakarta’ policy, systematically deprived Jakarta’s already highly vulnerable urban-poor of their homes and livelihoods by destroying rickshaws, razing slum areas on the river banks and harassing street vendors. The Jakarta Governor’s policy of forced evictions in several slum areas caused many casualties and extensive material damage. For instance, when the North Jakarta Municipal authorities forcibly removed a slum community on the banks of Pejagalan River, four people were shot and injured by police. Some 1 010 families lost their dwellings and were displaced. The forced removal of a slum community in Pondok Kopi, East Jakarta, left 10 people with gunshot wounds from police fire and 400 families homeless. Similar incidents have occurred in other communities, such as the fishing community in Ancol, North Jakarta and Pesing in West Jakarta.106 • Some 1 500 Marunda residents from North Jakarta were evicted from land that they had previously been permitted to cultivate and live on. Police, military officers and hired thugs set fire to at least 300 makeshift houses belonging to the residents. Bulldozers flattened anything that was left standing. The Government said the land belonged to the state-owned industrial estate company PT Kawasan Berikat Nusantara.107 ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: No

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES “On Thursday [10 January 2002], I was woken at about 2 a.m. by the sound of tanks and bulldozers that had come from the direction of the Israeli army post. I got out of bed and saw that my sons had also woken up. The bulldozers were approaching the house and we decided to leave immediately. We woke up the others and got out. We managed to proceed a few metres when three bulldozers reached the house. Immediately, one of them started to demolish the house. I stood in the rain for a few moments, unable to believe that I wouldn’t ever see my house again. The children were screaming and one of them asked me to run away because he was afraid I would get hurt. We fled to the adjacent street. I stood there with my wife, children, grandchildren and others in my family and watched for 10 minutes as the bulldozer destroyed our house.” - Testimony to B’Tselem, Israeli Human Rights NGO (February 2002). Forced eviction and housing demolition “are not only immoral and cruel and violate the Geneva Conventions, but they will bring about the opposite result, the creation of more suicide bombers. We have here a double, triple punishment in the cruellest form.” - Dan Yakir, head of the Israeli Civil Rights Association.

The Government of Israel continued its practice of forced eviction and housing demolition throughout 2001 and 2002, notwithstanding that such acts not only constitute gross violations of human rights but also war crimes, under both the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It has been 106 Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Forced Eviction is Human Rights Violation (13 December 2002). 107 The Jakarta Post (31 August 2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

reported that, from 28 September 2000 to 3 September 2001, 4 994 residential buildings were destroyed in the West Bank alone. Additionally, a United Nations expert reported that, from April 2001 to April 2002, over 400 houses were completely destroyed, and another 200 seriously damaged in the Gaza Strip, leaving 5 000 persons homeless.108 Many more homes were destroyed in and around Jerusalem.109 During the same period, 285 808 fruit and olive trees were uprooted, and wells and agricultural buildings destroyed.110 Article 53 of the [Fourth] Geneva Convention states that: “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited.”111 Indeed, under Articles 146 and 147, such acts constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, under which Governments are obligated to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and to bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before their respective courts. Furthermore, the United Nations Committee Against Torture recently concluded that the Government of Israel’s practice of forced eviction and housing demolition may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of Article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Israel ratified in 1991.112 • During a series of incursions into the Jenin Refugee Camp near Nablus on the West Bank in April 2002, Israeli forces used a campaign of forced eviction and housing demolition, resulting in reports that 35 to 40 per cent of the housing was destroyed. In some cases, houses were bulldozed before the occupants were able to get out, thereby killing or burying several families alive. A large swath of the refugee camp – an area of 400m by 500m – was flattened, leaving over 800 persons homeless.113 Speaking from inside Jenin Refugee Camp, Amnesty International delegate Javier Zuniga said, “This is one of the worst scenes of devastation I have ever witnessed. It is almost impossible to conceive that what was once a town is now a lunar landscape. There is a real possibility that people are still alive under the rubble of their former homes. One of our colleagues from a local human rights organisation received a phone call from a family of 10 trapped below ground and asking for help, yet there is no evidence of concerted efforts to search for and rescue survivors.”114 • Amnesty International reported that in 2001, Palestinian houses, especially those close to borders or settlements, were frequently destroyed without warning by Israeli forces. Indeed, Amnesty reported that during 2001, more than 500 Palestinian homes were demolished, making at least 4 000 people homeless, the great majority of them children.115 Israeli forces also destroyed orchards and agricultural or industrial installations. For example, Israeli authorities destroyed Palestinian houses for alleged security reasons, as collective pun-

108 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/32 (6 March 2002). 109 Ministry of Housing of the Palestinian Authority, Damages to public and private building and infrastructure facilities 28 September 2000 – 3 September2001. 110 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/32 (6 March 2002). 111 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Art. 53, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, entered into force 21 October 1950. 112 See Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture : Israel, UN Doc. CAT/C/XXVII/Concl.5 (23 November 2001). 113 Habitat International Coalition, Once Upon a Time in Jenin (25 April 2002). 114 Amnesty International, Jenin Refugee Camp: Amnesty International calls for immediate international humanitarian assistance, AI Index MDE 15/052/2002 - News Service Nr. 68 (17 April 2002). 115 Amnesty International, Committee Against Torture says Israel’s policy of closures and demolitions of Palestinian homes may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, AI Index MDE 15/105/2001 - News Service Nr. 207, London: AI (2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

ishment, and as part of a discriminatory planning policy which prohibits the building of Palestinian houses while freely allowing Israelis to construct settlements. At least 350 Palestinian houses were destroyed in the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the West Bank during 2001.116 Again, such demolitions are in violation of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court. “Homes are demolished usually with a few minutes’ or no warning at all, causing material loss and trauma to thousands of Palestinians. These policies are unacceptable and must end,” Amnesty International said. 117 • The Government of Israel forcibly evicted over 500 persons, rendering them homeless in violation of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law, on 3 July 2001. The forced evictions were followed by the destruction of their homes and caves in and around the villages of Wad Rakhaim, Karbet alNabi, Kharbet al-Sussia, Imnaizel, and al-Shatneh in the occupied West Bank. The Israeli forces also destroyed food crops and poisoned water wells in the area, thereby making the affected area uninhabitable. • On 19 July 2002, the Israeli authorities rendered another 22 persons homeless when they demolished homes belonging to family members of suspected militants. Such collective punishment, which is a clear violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, is the official policy of the Government of Israel – a policy that punishes families of persons who are merely suspected of criminal activity. Alarmingly, in this case many family members were arbitrarily detained and threatened with forced exile, in an apparent escalation of official government policy that, again, violates Israel’s international legal obligations.118 • On 10 July 2001, Israeli-owned bulldozers demolished 14 houses in Rafah, in the southern Gaza strip, adding these to the 17 houses demolished a day before in Shu’fat refugee camp, north of Jerusalem, leaving some 300 people homeless. Seven Palestinians were wounded while trying to defend their homes.119 • According to testimony received by Amnesty International, at 11:20 pm on 10 April 2001 the Israeli Defence Forces, using a number of tanks accompanied by three bulldozers, crossed al-Tuffah checkpoint into the Gaza Strip from the Gush Katif settlement block. The incursion took place without warning and there was a six-hour barrage of fire on homes before the bulldozers started to demolish houses. Some 240 persons were forced to flee their homes. A total of twenty-eight houses were totally destroyed while others were partly demolished. Two persons were killed during the attack and several others were wounded.120 • Israeli forces, using tanks and bulldozers, demolished some sixty homes in the Rafa Refugee Camp in the southern part of the Gaza Strip on 10 January 2002, rendering 614 persons homeless.121 The next day, an additional 18 homes were destroyed in the al-Barama section of the camp.122 According to Amnesty International, “over the past 16 months, at least 250 homes have been demolished in Rafah making more than 1 500 people homeless, the vast majority of them children.”123 116 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Israel and the Occupied Territories, London: AI (2002). 117 Amnesty International, Committee Against Torture says Israel’s policy of closures and demolitions of Palestinian homes may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, AI Index MDE 15/105/2001 - News Service Nr. 207, London: AI (2001). 118 Reuters, Israel Weighs Exile for Militants’ Relatives (19 July 2002). 119 Palestine Media Centre (10 July 2001). 120 Amnesty International, Broken Lives – A Year of Intifada, London: AI 2001. 121 Amnesty International, Israel/Occupied Territories: Demolition of houses is an act of collective punishment, AI-index: MDE 15/005/2002 (14 January 2002); Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, para. 1, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/32 (6 March 2002).. 122 Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Press Release 4/2001 (12 January 2002). 123 Amnesty International, Israel/Occupied Territories: Demolition of houses is an act of collective punishment, AI-index: MDE 15/005/2002 (14 January 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• In the Brazil and al-Sha’er areas of Rafah, 17 houses were demolished after Israeli tanks and bulldozers crossed the border at around 1:00 am on 2 May 2001. The Israeli Defence Forced killed one child and wounded 13 others during the forced evictions and demolition.124 • At 12:45 am on 10 July 2001, Israeli tanks and bulldozers crossed into the Gaza Strip and demolished 24 houses in the Block O of Yibna Refugee Camp, near the Salah al-Din Gate. Representatives of Amnesty International who had visited the houses over the previous few months testified that the homes did not appear to have been used for shooting at Israeli soldiers, as the Israeli forces claimed.125 • Between March and July 2001, the Israeli authorities destroyed more than 130 homes in and around the Rafa Refugee Camp, rendering more than a thousand persons homeless.126 • On 17 and 18 September 2001, Israeli Defence Forces forcibly evicted 118 persons from three encampments, destroyed their homes, filled in the wells and erected a military camp. Palestinian and Israeli non-governmental organisations challenged the forced evictions in the Israeli High Court of Justice, which issued an injunction allowing the families to return. They were not, however, allowed to reconstruct their homes nor clean the blocked wells.127 • On 20 August 2001 Israeli authorities forcibly evicted the residents of a five-story block of flats and subsequently demolished the building, located in the Jerusalem suburb of Beit Hanin.128 • In March of 2001, 14 houses around Jerusalem were demolished, leaving the residents homeless. Between 1 and 4 April 2001, other houses were demolished in the area.129 • During 2001, at least 70 homes were reported destroyed in East Jerusalem pursuant to so-called administrative house-demolition orders. The forced evictions preceding the demolition rendered 405 persons homeless, including 238 children.130 • During an invasion of the village of Beit Rima on 24 October 2001, the Israeli Defence Forces demolished three houses as a form of collective punishment. The demolitions were conducted with no legal process whatsoever and without letting the families retrieve personal belongings.131 • Early in the morning of 21 February 2002, Israeli forces took over two apartment buildings on the outskirts of Nablus in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The residents were evicted and forced into one apartment on the ground floor of the building. They were subsequently denied relief supplies.132

Amnesty International, Broken Lives – A Year of Intifada, London: AI 2001. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Land and Housing Research Centre, Annual Statistical Report on House Demolition in Jerusalem (10 January 2002). B’Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Beit Rima, 24 October 2001: Human Rights Violations during the IDF Action in Beit Rima (24 October 2001). 132 Free Speech Radio News, 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• While not forced evictions per se, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have mounted attacks on civilian housing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. For example, on 21 July 2002, the IDF carried out an extra-judicial execution of a suspected Hamas leader by attacking the apartment building in which he was reported to live with missiles fired from an F-16 fighter jet. The attack resulted in the deaths of 15 civilians including nine children, the injury of than 140 civilians, and the destruction of the residential building.133 • On 8 August 2002, the IDF carried out another unlawful incident of collective punishment by forcibly evicting four families and demolishing their houses. Although the IDF claimed the homes belonged to suicide bombers or suspected militants, it is unlawful to collectively punish family members and the guilt of the living suspects was not established through a fair trial but according to mere suspicion and accusations.134 • On 13 August 2002, the IDF carried out further forced evictions and housing demolitions, this time in the town of Dahariya and the village of Doha, both in the southern West Bank. In Doha, troops detonated explosives in a huge blast that sent sparks showering into the night sky. The occupants of the house stood watching nearby. Relatives helped support one woman to prevent her from falling as she cried. Earlier, the IDF carried out an extra-judicial execution of a person suspected of criminal activity and subsequently forcibly evicted his family and demolished their home in Nablus.135 • On 21 May 2002, Israeli authorities forcibly evicted three families and demolished three houses in the Beit Hanina area of East Jerusalem. Using some 300 troops to surround the area, four bulldozers entered the neighborhood in the early morning and demolished the houses, leaving 35 persons homeless, including 24 children.136 • During July, August and September 2002, Israeli forces forcibly evicted more than 36 families and demolished their homes as a means of collective punishment in violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as the Government’s human rights obligations. For example, on 25 September 2002, Israeli forces demolished three houses, this time near Hebron and Dura in the West Bank. At the first house, Israeli soldiers gave family members 10 minutes to remove belongings before a huge explosion levelled their home.137 • On 13 October 2002, two Palestinians, one a toddler, were killed and more than 30 wounded in the Rafah Refugee Camp in the Gaza Strip when Israeli troops raided the crowded refugee camp to raze houses. Witnesses in the camp said a three-year-old Palestinian child was crushed to death under his family house, which collapsed from the force of explosions set off by the raiding tank and infantry forces in adjacent houses. Twenty-five other Palestinians were also wounded.138 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: No

133 134 135 136 137 138

Associated Press (21 July 2002). New York Times, New Israeli Army Action As Joint Talks Collapse (8 August 2002). Associated Press, Israel Demolishes Two Suspects’ Homes (13 August 2002). World Organisation Against Torture, OMCT Appeals, Israel: Demolition of 3 houses in East-Jerusalem (22 May 2002). New York Times, Israel Destroys Three Palestinian Homes (25 September 2002). New York Times, Two Killed in Israeli Demolition of Gaza Homes (13 October 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

JAPAN • In early 2001, authorities in Osaka began forcibly evicting homeless persons who had been living in Nagai Park. The evictions, in which 480 tents were removed, occurred in order to construct sports facilities to be used in Japan’s bid for the 2008 Olympic Games. There are now at least 30 000 homeless persons in Japan, and increasing incidents of forced removal by the authorities.139 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: No

MALAYSIA • Hundreds of families were evicted and displaced to make way for the reservoir created by the construction of the Bakun Dam. The Government of Malaysia stated that it would not provide compensation to those displaced from public lands, even though many had been residing there for nearly 40 years.140 The Government’s position contravenes international human rights law, which calls for alternative housing and other compensation for evictees. • Fourteen families were evicted from the site of Kuching City’s second bridge project spanning Sungai Sarawak after the Land and Survey Department mobilised a 180-member team, backed by 300 police officers, to tear down their houses in Kampung Bintawa Hulu. The residents had owned the land under customary rights, which were extinguished with the adoption of the Sarawak Land Code.141 • In August 2002, more than 20 enforcement officers from the Divisional Land and Surveys Office and several policemen demolished two squatter houses at Jalan Mission in order to make way for the construction of a water treatment plant.142 • In July 2002, approximately 285 houses were demolished after the occupants were forcibly evicted as a means of apprehending suspected undocumented immigrants in 44 locations near Penampang.143 The Government of Malaysia planned to implement new legislation allowing the torture of those detained as undocumented immigrants. • In August 2001, a total of 146 squatter families in Kuala Lumpur received eviction notices to clear an area to be developed by a private company. The families had lived in the houses since the 1950s. The mostly IndianMalaysian families totalled 422 persons, including 23 single mothers. The Government offered no compensation or resettlement plans.144 • The Guthrie Group and its subsidiary Guthrie Property Development Holding, assisted by the State Government and police, forcibly evicted 34 workers from the Bukit Jeluting Estate on 27 June 2002. The plantation workers, from families who had lived and worked on the plantation for four generations, where given little 139 140 141 142 143 144

HPN Homeless Newswire, Forced Eviction of the Homeless for the Olympic Games!! (24 February 2001). New Sabah Times (5 July 2002). Malaysiakini Internet News (25 January 2002); The Star (26 January 2002); Sarawak Tribune (26 January 2002). Sarawak Tribune (28 August 2002). New Sabah Times (31 July 2002). Malaysian National News Agency (23 August 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

or no notice before heavy machinery demolished their homes. Indeed, the notice to vacate their homes was required by law to be served two weeks prior to the eviction, but the notice was issued less than two hours prior to demolition, and only to those families who happened to be home. The land was being cleared of the workers, who had helped make the Guthrie Group prosperous, in order to make way for the development of middleclass and luxury housing.145 ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: No

NEPAL • As reported by the World Heritage Committee (WHC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Pashupati Area Development Trust began demolishing homes near the Pashupatinath Temple in Kathmandu. As of 30 July 2002, the authorities had demolished fifty of the 119 houses under threat. In addition to resulting in the eviction of scores of families, UNESCO warned that the demolitions could seriously undermine the authenticity and integrity of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes Constitution: Yes

PAKISTAN • According to the People’s Rights Movement, on 24 August 2002 a massive contingent of law-enforcement authorities including the police, paramilitary forces (Rangers) and army brigades launched a completely unprovoked operation against the unarmed landless tenants of Okara military farms, in the central part of Punjab province, in an effort to forcibly evict thousands of residents. In a move that shocked even those expecting the worst, thousands of tenants were fired upon, shelled with tear gas, and beaten with batons. Several persons were injured, some severely, and three were killed. Electricity and water service to four villages was disconnected. COHRE joined the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions in an call for an impartial and independent inquiry into the incident. • Some 1 500 families in the village of Sri Saral in the Margalla Hills district near Islamabad were forcibly evicted to make way for the development of luxury residential housing. The residents of Sri Saral were required to vacate their village to make way for this development. In return, they were paid 70 to 700 rupees per kanal, 10 000 to 100 000 times less than the price of the same land after development. They were also promised residential plots in a so far non-existent sector that may take two to three decade to become a reality. The new residential sector was inaugurated by the Interior Minister on 16 July 2002. In a scene some called “reminiscent of the Palestinian Occupied Territories”, bulldozers arrived on 29 July, along with hundreds of armed police, to demolish the village houses in order to make way for the new sector. Several villagers resisted the bulldozers and the police responded by killing two and injuring dozens. Many more were taken into custody and charged with committing terrorism-related offences. 146 145 Mahazalim. 146 Dawn Review, Forced Evictions in the Name of Development (22 August 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• In January 2002, COHRE received reports that the Pakistan Government and Karachi City government undertook a massive bulldozing operation affecting poor people in Lyari Nadi (River) in Karachi. COHRE has learned from reliable sources that the city government started a bulldozing operation in Karachi on Monday 21 January 2002. Since then, the authorities have bulldozed a large number of community establishments, with as many as 25 000 homes scheduled for demolition. This operation has continued on and off since January, despite the High Court issuing repeated staying orders, with the result that thousands of homes have been bulldozed in 46 low-income settlements along both sides of Lyari River. The operation has left thousands of families homeless at the height of winter, and destroyed assets worth millions of rupees. The city government has no plans to adequately compensate these families or offer them appropriate alternative living places. • Over 2 000 families were forcibly evicted on 21 and 22 January 2002 and their homes bulldozed to make way for an expressway in Karachi. Only ten of those were even offered compensation of any kind. Despite the fact that, in May, the Government put the Lyari Expressway project on hold “until the people effected were satisfied,” since 27 June 2002 the government has bulldozed over 400 residential and commercial units. Out of these 400 evicted families only 35 qualified under government conditions to get alternative land. The resettlement policy is not transparent and the Government, despite promises to do so, did not publish a list of effected families. An additional 77 000 families in the area, totalling over 203 200 individuals, continued to face imminent forced eviction at the hands of Pakistani authorities.147 • In July 2002, an additional 400 houses inhabited by over 6 000 people were bulldozed by the city administration to make way for the Lyari Expressway. These demolitions ware carried out with support of the rangers and the army. When the residents protested, they were heavily tear-gassed and beaten. Another 25 000 houses have been marked for demolition along with 3 600 commercial enterprises that provide jobs to over 40 000 workers. Many of the homes and businesses being demolished are leased and many more have legal water and electric connections for which they pay utility charges. Some of the settlements that are being effected are over 150 years old. • In July 2001 the Government of Pakistan forcibly evicted, or threatened with forced eviction, thousands of Afghani refugees living in refugee camps near Nasir Bagh, Peshawar, Pakistan. Indeed, Pakistani officials planned to raze an entire refugee camp to make way for a housing development. The Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees confirmed that another 87 families (470 people) left Nasir Bagh for Afghanistan around 9 July 2001, after 39 families were displaced on 5 July 2001.148 • UNHCR has received reports from Afghan refugees in the neighbouring cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi who have experienced police harassment, forced eviction, and extortion. ICESCR: No ICCPR: No 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: Yes

147 Homeless International, Eviction Alert Appeal: Karachi, Pakistan (28 January 2002 and 3 July 2002). 148 See United Nations Integrated Regional Information Network, Housing rights body condemns Islamabad on Nasir Bagh, Islamabad: IRIN 11 July 2002.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

PHILIPPINES “Halfway to the main road, Marilyn decided to go back and get some of their personal belongings. She was careful at first to keep her body down. But anxious to get back, she stood up to walk faster. Nelia felt cold all over when she heard people shouting that a woman had been hit. Her worst fear was confirmed when she saw her sister sprawled on the ground. Neighbours helped her carry Marilyn to a nearby hospital but she was pronounced dead on arrival.” -Testimony of a young girl whose sister was killed during a forced eviction.

• The Agno River has always been regarded as sacred by the indigenous Ibaloi people of Benguet. Known as their ‘cultural heartland’, the river valley has hosted the small mines, farms and homes of the Ibaloi for at least five centuries. The San Roque Dam, currently under construction in Central Luzon, will permanently damage the Agno River, thereby destroying the lives and livelihoods of the Ibaloi. Already, more than 600 families have been evicted to make way for the dam. Many are struggling to survive in cramped quarters in a resettlement site, without any land to sustain them. The lives of another 200 families are being disrupted by excavation for the dam. They, too, will be forced from their lands. When completed, the dam will adversely affect more than 35 000 indigenous persons, mostly Ibaloi, Kankanaey and Kalanguya living upstream from the dam. They are concerned that high rates of sedimentation from mining and other land use in the watershed area will lead to increased flooding upstream of the reservoir, inundating their homes and burial sites and negatively impacting water quality.149 • The Guardian reported on 22 May 2002 that 250 persons were forcibly evicted in order to make way for the eco-tourism industry.150 Their lake-shore village of Ambulong, in Batangas province, was attacked by hundreds of police, who demolished 24 houses. Many people were reported wounded, four seriously and one with a bullet wound. Cesar Arellano, of Pamalakaya, a Filipino human rights organisation, said: “The people are not leaving – they have set up camp. They are going to fight for their land.” • A violent demolition in Dasmariñas, Cavite killed several shanty dwellers and displaced hundreds of urban poor families. Three people were reported dead, four wounded and 500 families evicted. Bulatlat.com, which reported the eviction, wrote about one young girl’s story during the eviction (see box). Before this incident, there were other violent demolitions in Cavite. At least 50 families in the town of Indang lost their homes and some 300 families were evicted from Pabahay 2000 in the town of General Trias. Bulatlat.com also reported that four children died in the aftermath of a forced eviction of 100 families in Quezon City. These and many other illegal demolitions continue despite a government agreement issued in February 2002 ordering a review of all demolitions in consultation with NGOs and urban poor groups.151 • On 8 August 2002, authorities began to forcibly evict 17 farmers and six extended families living in Barangay Talomo, Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte and destroyed housing and other property. The forced evictions were carried out by the Sheriff’s Department, the Philippine National police accompanied by the Chief of Police, civilians and security guards hired by the supposed owner of the contested land and alleged members of the military who were not wearing their uniforms. The farmers successfully delayed the evictions, even though some housing was destroyed, but were given 15 days to relocate.152 149 150 151 152

International Rivers Network, San Roque Dam, Agno River, Philippines (2002). Guardian newspaper, A rapid growth in eco-tourism has been at the expense of indigenous peoples, 22 May 2002. www.Bulatlat.com. World Organisation Against Torture, OMTC Appeals (8 August 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• The Anti-Vender Unit of the City of Quezon forcibly evicted around 100 families on 5 March 2001 near Old Samson Road. More than 50 of their homes were subsequently demolished. The eviction occurred at a time when several children in the effected community had the measles, and contributed to the deaths of four of the children.153 • Some 174 families were forcibly evicted near Letre Road in Tonsuya, Malabon on 13 March 2001. The families were given no notice prior to the evictions being carried out.154 • The owner of land on Malaya Street, Brgy Pinyahan, Quezon City, forcibly evicted 23 families from their homes in order to clear the land for the construction of condominium housing. The families found their homes padlocked on 27 April 2001 and were not allowed to retrieve their belongings before their homes were destroyed by local police.155 • Some 200 houses were demolished near C5, Fort Bonifacio, on 25 July 2001. The evictions were carried out not only by BCDA demolition crews, but by military personnel, a further violation of Philippines law.156 • On 20 August 2001, some 700 families were awakened around midnight and forcibly evicted near Area F, Barangay Fatima, Dasmarinas Bagong Bayan Dasmarinas, Cavite. Their homes were then set on fire and destroyed.157 • In Old Balara, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, around 200 families were evicted on 24 September 2001 after receiving five days’ notice. The residents had been faithfully negotiating with the metropolitan government, but the evictions occurred before the negotiations were complete.158 • Approximately 300 families were forcibly evicted, with no prior notice, from C3 in Navotas on 16 October 2001. In the course of the evictions, two children were killed.159 • Seventy-seven families living along the seawall of Roxas Boulevard near the Cuneta Astrodome in Pasay City were forcibly evicted, again without prior notice, on 5 November 2001. Personal belongings and family pets were destroyed in the process and four men were beaten by the demolition crews. The site to which the families were relocated lacked water and electricity and the rents were beyond what most were able to pay.160 • Demolition crews used a bulldozer to destroy the homes of some 150 families along C5 in Taguig. Police and soldiers held the residents at bay while the demolition occurred on 19 November 2001.161 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes Constitution: Yes 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161

Demolition Monitor (January – December 2001). Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

SRI LANKA “We never thought the government would shatter our life like this when they gave us endless promises. My one-year-old son does not understand any of this. I don’t know whom to tell and where to go.” - Young mother after being forcibly evicted and watching her house destroyed in Wattala, Sri Lanka in July 2002.

• The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) began a recruitment drive in August 2001 in which they forcibly recruited children, some as young as ten. It was reported by Amnesty International that families who refused to surrender their children as child soldiers were punished with forced eviction.162 These human rights violations were reported to have occurred in Batticaloa District, particularly in the divisions of Vakarai, Vavunativu, Pattipalai, Porativu, Eravurpattu and Koralaipattu. • On 11 July 2002, more than 200 houses in Wattala were bulldozed by the Urban Development Authority (UDA). Residents reported that their personal belongings were destroyed or discarded by those carrying out the forced evictions. The UDA claimed that it had to remove the residents and destroy their homes in order to make way for an “international-standard sports ground.” The residents claimed that they had been given two weeks’ notice and told to rebuild their houses in a marsh near Kerawlapitiya, but they refused to move as they had been given the land near Wattala by the government in 1999 and the marsh area was considered inadequate for housing. No one was offered compensation, but the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has stepped in to support the residents.163 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes Constitution: Yes

THAILAND • The construction of the Pak Mook Dam has resulted in the forced eviction of thousands. For example, in December 2002 some 40 hooded men raided a village and destroyed more than 250 homes while the occupants were away to attend a meeting with the Prime Minister in Bangkok.164 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: No Constitution: Yes

162 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Sri Lanka, London: AI (2002). 163 The Island Sunday, Squatters homes demolished to build a sports ground (21 July 2002); The Daily Mirror, From home to nowhere (12 July 2002). 164 Bangkok Post (16 December 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

TURKMENISTAN • Forced evictions have occurred in Turkmenistan in retaliation for participation in religious activities. For example, Human Rights Watch has reported that several families were evicted from their homes in retaliation for praying at unsanctioned gatherings.165 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes Constitution: No

Europe Although forced evictions continue to take place in many parts of Europe, many countries in this region of the world do have relatively good records with respect to housing rights. Across the European Union (E.U.) there exists a wide consensus that having a home is a social right and that public authorities should take steps to ensure this right. On average, eight out of ten European Union citizens think that the “right to housing” should be respected under all circumstances (see Table 1, below).

Table 1. Right of Housing Should Be Respected Under All Circumstances Country Greece Portugal Spain France Finland Luxembourg Sweden Germany Denmark Ireland EU-15 Belgium Austria Italy Netherlands United Kingdom

Share (%) reporting 93 92 91 90 89 89 87 86 84 84 83 82 80 78 74 70

Source: Eurobarometer 52.1 – Autumn 1999. Cited in Dragana Avramov, Liana Giorgi, and Angelika Kofler, European Housing Policies Compared, The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Scienes (ICCR), IMPACT: The Housing Dimension of Welfare Reform Working Paper 2000.

165 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2002: Turkmenistan, New York: HRW (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

Many E.U. member countries protect the right to housing under national legislation. For example, in many European countries, owners and landlords cannot legally evict a tenant on the grounds that they have found another one willing to pay more. However, a landlord can terminate a tenancy by a regular notice based on terms foreseen in the rental agreement and in the tenancy law, or may seek an extraordinary termination if a tenant does not meet his or her obligations. Legally-defined reasons for termination of tenancies include: end of contract, demolition or refurbishing, owner’s need for personal use of a dwelling, rent arrears (debt), and tenant’s unacceptable behaviour or use of an apartment contrary to terms of the tenancy agreement. Termination of regular tenancy requires a period of notice that usually varies between two months and a year, depending on the duration of tenancy. Extraordinary termination of tenancy due to a tenant’s violation of contractual terms, such as default of payment, disturbance of domestic peace or misuse of the apartment, does not require a period of notice. It does, however, entail a judicial procedure of eviction that may last as long as one year. Notwithstanding such protections, those living in Europe, as mentioned above, continue to suffer forced eviction, or the prospect of forced eviction. Such violations of human rights often affect the more vulnerable members of society, including minorities, immigrants, the poor, and the disabled. For instance, according to the European Roma Rights Center, in almost every European country with a significant Romani population, Roma are either evicted and/or threatened with forced eviction on a daily basis. At the same time, in most countries there are insufficient procedural guarantees to prevent forced evictions from being carried out in violation of the relevant international standards. The following are reports of forced evictions in Europe during 2001 and 2002.

BULGARIA • Human Rights Project, an NGO based in Bulgaria, reported that in March 2001 the municipal authorities in Sofia declared their intention to evict Roma inhabitants from houses in the ‘Assanova Mhala’ in the Lyuulin area of Sofia.166 • Amnesty International reported that in July 2001, Veska Voleva, a lawyer, intervened in the eviction of a family from an apartment in Sofia. Two police officers handcuffed her, dragged her down the stairs and took her to the 9th Regional Police Department. In a barred holding cell she was reportedly slapped and kicked all over the body for about 15 minutes by five officers, and then handcuffed to an iron bar for between two and three hours. She was held for 24 hours in a bare cell where she slept on the cement floor. Her requests to contact her family and to be medically examined were denied. Only a few of the reported perpetrators were brought to justice. Even then, the investigations appeared to be unnecessarily prolonged and hampered by the suspected perpetrators who, it was reported, frequently harassed witnesses.167 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

166 Human Rights Project, Letter to the Mayor of Sofia, dated 5 March 2001. 167 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Bulgaria, London: AI (2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

CZECH REPUBLIC • In 2002 the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed concern about the acute shortage of housing and the privatisation of some public housing stocks which resulted in a sharp rise in rents, forced evictions and homelessness. The Committee urged the Czech Republic to take effective measures to address the problems of: (a) the housing shortage, by adopting housing programmes, especially for disadvantaged and marginalized groups; and (b) forced evictions and homelessness, by respecting the Committee’s General Comments 4 and 7 and devising a comprehensive plan to combat homelessness.168 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: No

GREECE • According to the World Organization Against Torture, Roma communities in and around Athens are being evicted from their settlements as part of the preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. So far, the Greek authorities have failed to take appropriate action to prevent these evictions and the International Olympic Committee has remained silent on this issue.169 • On 13 September 2001, according to the Greek Helsinki Monitor and the European Roma Rights Center, municipal authorities in the Aspropyrgos municipality just outside Athens destroyed six homes and damaged another (all of which belonged to Greek Romani and Albanian Romani families) while carrying out forced evictions. The homes, together with all their contents, were reportedly demolished under the orders of the Mayor of Aspropyrgos and in view of a police patrol vehicle with two officers in it. According to eyewitnesses, these police did not intervene against the destruction of the dwellings. No eviction notice had been served on the families.170 • On 29 August 2001, at about 11:00 a.m., municipal authorities in the Glykada Riganokampos area of the Municipality of Patras entered a Romani settlement with bulldozers and proceeded to “clean” the area. Two houses were demolished, including all the personal belongings inside. According to information provided by the non-governmental organisation Coordinated Organisations and Communities for Roma Human Rights in Greece (SOKADRE), municipal employees checked to see whether the shacks were inhabited but did not allow inhabitants to remove any of their belongings before they demolished the structures. The owners of one home were reportedly absent at the time of demolition. Prior to the incident, no eviction orders or warrants had been presented to the owners, and from the available information, the municipal authorities did not appear to have acquired the required permission from the University of Patras, the owner of the land on which the settlement was situated, to enter the camp. Furthermore, the demolition was allegedly carried out without the authorisation or presence of a public prosecutor, as required under Greek law in cases involving the violation of privacy and the home.171

168 Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Czech Republic, UN Doc. E/C.12/1/Add.76 (17 May 2002). 169 World Organisation Against Torture, OMTC Press Release, Greece: Evictions of Roma as part of the Preparation for the 2004 Olympic Games (28 February 2002). 170 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights Nr. 4 (2001). 171 Id.; see also Human Rights Watch, World Report 2002: Greece, New York: HRW (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• Sometime during 8 or 9 April 2002, “unknown individuals” entered the Gerambella Romani settlement near the city of Pyrgos and burned several houses to the ground. Reportedly, all of the Roma were working at the time the incident took place and no one was at the settlement. Nonetheless, this action amounts to an eviction and rendered the residents homeless. While it is unclear whether government authorities or private actors were responsible, it was clear that the settlement had been under threat from local community members and authorities for some time. For instance, members of the non-Roma community had publicly threatened the Roma community and, on 13 February 2002, a bulldozer belonging to the City of Pyrgos arrived at the settlement late in the evening with the objective to demolish the homes, but the residents were successful in stopping the incursion. Since these events should have put the Greek authorities on notice that the Gerambella settlement was under threat, these events arguably amount to a violation by the Government of Greece in that it failed to protect the housing rights of the settlement’s residents.172 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

HUNGARY • According to the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), a wave of evictions, targeting especially Roma, continued in Hungary throughout 2001 and 2002. For example, according to Mr István Patay, a Romani man who provided testimony to the ERRC on 18 February 2002, Mr Patay, his brother, his wife and their three children, all below the age of four, were evicted from the flat they were occupying in Budapest on 2 February 2002. The family had reportedly been living in the flat for around five years. Mr Patay reported that on 12 February 2002, approximately 30 private security guards and several workers went to their home, broke down the gate and began to demolish the house while the family was away. Upon returning home, Mr Patay and family members were unable to get into the house to retrieve their possessions. As of 23 April 2002 the family was reportedly homeless.173 • The ERRC also reported that 22 families were evicted in the Eighth District of Budapest in 2001, 11 of them pursuant to a procedure whereby notaries (jegyzo) order the eviction. While this procedure allows for judicial appeal, it does not provide for injunctive relief and therefore evictees are left homeless during the appeals process. The procedure therefore contravenes the Government of Hungary’s legal obligations under international human rights law. • The ERRC also reported that, according to Budapest’s 11th District Roma Self-Government, an elderly couple were evicted on 20 March 2002 from Kondorosi street in Budapest’s 11th District. The eviction took place in the couple’s absence, following a decision of the Budapest City Court which was not subject to appeal. The couple had occupied the run-down flat for five years, although they did not possess a legal contract to it. On 22 May

172 World Organisation Against Torture. 173 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 1 (2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

2002, Budapest’s Klub Radio announced that Mr Ferenc Dominák, Head of the Property Management Office for Budapest’s 11th District, had stated that the district had no flat to offer the couple, who were rendered homeless by the evictions and were reportedly sleeping in city parks.174 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

ITALY Italy’s national elections, held on 13 May 2001, and resulting in a victory for the centre-right coalition headed by Mr Silvio Berlusconi, were conducted in an explicitly anti-Romani atmosphere. Candidates also used inflammatory anti-Romani statements in an attempt to gain votes. A regional district candidate for the far-right Alleanza Nazionale party, Mr Giuseppe Consolo, was quoted in the Corriere della Sera article of 26 March 2001, as saying: “The left and radical-chic attempted to favour them [Roma] by giving them houses. Fortunately Storace took care of that. If they are nomads, they need to move on.” The statement was a reference to the continuing problems surrounding the camp Via Gordiani, on the southern periphery of Rome, where the spending of funds allocated to build permanent housing for the 250 Roma living in complete squalor was blocked by the regional president, Mr Francesco Storace, also a candidate of the Alleanza Nazionale party.175 On 4 February 2001, the regional branches of Italy’s far-right parties, Alleanza Nazionale and Forza Nuova, met publicly to celebrate “throwing the Gypsies out” of the Via Gordiani camp. The City of Rome had issued a permit for a public meeting at the Piazza Gerardo Maiella where approximately 200 right-wing supporters carried posters with the slogan: “Gypsies out equals a victory for the neighbourhood”.176 • As reported by the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC), instead of facilitating improved access to adequate housing among Roma in Italy, Italian authorities are continuing to capitalise on, and in many cases exacerbate, anti-Romani sentiment in Italy by conducting abusive raids on Romani settlements, and in extreme cases, expelling Roma from Italy. For example, on 21 December 2001, Mr Fabio Zerbini, an attorney working with 3 Febbraio and S.O.S. Anti-expulsion Switchboard, reported that on 6 November 2001, municipal police began dismantling the Barzaghi Roma settlement at dawn. Approximately 130 inhabitants had their homes destroyed with their belongings inside, resulting in loss of property. Many inhabitants were away from the site and returned to find the area bulldozed. Fifty of the Roma, left homeless after the destruction of their homes, occupied a nearby church for one evening. After being forced to leave the church, they moved to a local occupied house named Torchiera.177 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: No 174 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 2 (2002). 175 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 1 (2001). 176 Id. 177 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 1 (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

MACEDONIA (THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF) • According to Amnesty International, due to the conflict between Macedonian security forces and ethnic Albanian armed groups, over 170 000 persons were displaced from their homes at some time between March and August 2001 and over 50 000 remained displaced within Macedonia and in Kosovo by the end of September 2001. People who left their homes were mainly from villages which came under the control of the NLA. For example, between March and July 2001 around 65 000 ethnic Albanians were forcibly evicted and took refugee in neighbouring Kosovo. Likewise, tens of thousands of ethnic Macedonians reported being driven out of their homes by armed opposition forces and were displaced to other parts of Macedonia. Many of those from areas where they were in a minority did not return home. In mid-December 2001 a total of around 18 680 persons remained displaced.178 • In October 2001 local authorities destroyed 11 Romani houses in the Trakajna neighbourhood of Strumica, a town in south-eastern Macedonia, in order to make space for a new road planned to be built in the area, according to the %tip-based Association for Human Rights Protection of Roma, an NGO that monitors Roma rights in Macedonia. Before the demolition, the local self-government promised the Romani families whose houses were to be destroyed that they would be moved to new prefabricated houses. The promise was not kept, and the families were eventually left homeless. At the time of the Association’s visit, as winter approached, homeless Romani families lived in improvised shelters made of cardboard and car bodies.179 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

THE NETHERLANDS • On 15 October 2001, the Amsterdam-based Metro Nieuws reported the repeated eviction of the Romani Petalo family from various cities in the Netherlands. The Petalo family had been long-time residents of Amstelveen, just outside Amsterdam, living in caravans. When the head of the family, Mr Koko Petalo, died in 1996, the rest of the family went abroad for some time. When they returned to the place they had previously lived in Amstelveen, the 20 remaining family members were reportedly summarily evicted.180 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

178 Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Macedonia, London: AI (2002). 179 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 1 (2002). 180 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 4 (2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

ROMANIA • According to a report from the Romanian weekly electronic bulletin Roma News, 300 Roma were forcibly evicted and expelled from the Piscul Crasani neighbourhood of Bucharest, to the Bolintin region of Giurgiu County, on 13 April 2002. Most of those expelled fled the Bolintin region in 1991 following mob violence against them. In that year, at least 22 Romani houses were set on fire in the town of Bolintin Deal and Romani inhabitants in the area were forcibly expelled, with many relocating to the Piscul Crasani neighbourhood of Bucharest.181 v

ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

RUSSIAN FEDERATION • In August 2001, some 80 displaced persons were forcibly evicted and left without shelter in Malgobek, Ingushetia, when the building they had been staying in was torn down. The group had been living at the site since 1999, but the building was bought by a new owner who wanted to set up a new structure on the site. This eviction came just a week after a similar group of 100 persons was forcibly evicted from their settlement near Nazran. UNHCR was also aware of several other group settlements under immediate threat of eviction, including one building in the Nazran area which houses more than 120 persons. Meanwhile, evictions of individual families from private accommodation continued on an almost daily basis.182 • In April 2001 Ms Nadezhda Kalmykia and her family were forcibly evicted from their home in Elista, the capital of the Russian Republic of Kalmykia, according to reports from Amnesty International. Ms Kalmykia, a former school teacher, and her family went to the main square to peacefully protest her forced eviction in front of the parliament building. She was subsequently beaten by police. She alleged that approximately five police officers, led by a police colonel, arrived and dragged her to a police car, beating her with a hard instrument. On 13 April 2001, doctors recorded injuries to Nadezhda Ubushaeva’s hips, shoulders and face consistent with these allegations. She was held in the police station for about two hours. No investigation into these allegations was known to have been initiated. • According to Global IDP Project, some 100 Roma families were evicted in 2001 from the Krasnodar region to Voronezh.183 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

181 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 2 (2002). 182 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (28 August 2001). 183 Global IDP Project, Minorities under pressure to leave the Krasnodar and other regions in north Caucasus (October 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO • According to reports by the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Center (HLC), Kosovo Roma internally displaced to Belgrade are under constant threat of forced eviction. In a 12 April 2002 press statement, HLC reported the situation of six Romani families, altogether 27 persons including 17 children younger than age 15, who settled in improvised houses made of cardboard, pieces of wood and plastic sheets in a field near the Autokomanda area of Belgrade. Since moving from Kosovo to Serbia, the community had lived in three different locations in Belgrade; each time, the local authorities and the police forcibly evicted them and demolished their shelters. According to the testimony of a 17-year-old Romani youth from this group, given to HLC on an unspecified date, officials of the municipality of Vo,dovac and police officers had visited the settlement and had told the Roma that they must again move, this time before 12 April 2002. Another person told HLC that his two-year-old son, one-year-old son and two-month-old daughter slept on cardboard in the shack in which the family lived. A Romani woman from the settlement asked the officials what the Roma should do, to which the officials reportedly replied that this was “none of their business” and that the settlement would be demolished unless the Roma moved away before 12 April 2002. On 24 May 2002, the families succumbed to the pressure and moved to another inadequate location shortly after the deadline.184 • On 21 March 2002, HLC reported on a similar case in Belgrade, in which municipal officials in Novi Beograd threatened to forcibly evict and move a group of nine internally displaced Romani families from Kosovo from a plot of land in the Romani settlement of To&in Bunar. The families reportedly numbered 67 persons, including 27 children under the age of six. According to HLC, city officials sold the plot the families lived on, which is part of the To&in Bunar settlement, to a private company, and this company requested that the municipality move the Roma from the land. According to the Belgrade-based non-governmental organisation Minority Rights Center (MRC), municipal officials issued a 1 April 2002 deadline to the Roma to evacuate the area. In an 18 April 2002 interview, a member of the special delegation of Roma from To&in Bunar, representing the Roma in negotiations with authorities, informed MRC that in September 2001 at a meeting with the Novi Beograd Municipality, the private company had offered the Romani families 200-300 German marks per family (approximately 100–150 euros) to leave their houses and move away. According to this representative, most of the Roma did not agree and shortly afterwards, unknown men appeared in the settlement and allegedly threatened the Roma representative to the effect that he would “disappear” if he refused to move within 24 hours. On 24 May 2002, when the Roma’s appeals to the local authorities to provide temporary shelter for them had met no response, they reluctantly moved to the part of the settlement out of the boundaries of the land sold to the private company. For many of these Roma, this was reportedly a second or even third forced eviction.185

184 European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 2 (2002). 185 Id.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

• In January 2002, COHRE expressed its concern regarding the current situation of eight Roma families who were evicted from shacks in the Kosutnjak district of Belgrade in June 2001. Since June 2001, these Roma families have been living in a park, in temporary wooden shelters with no access to toilets and drinking water. They have no food, except that which they find in garbage bins, and they have frequently been targeted with hate crimes, including having stones thrown at them from moving cars, and having garbage dumped in their settlements. Since the original eviction, the Cukarika Municipality Council has continued to refuse to find alternative land to build housing for the eight Roma families. ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: No Constitution: No

UKRAINE • Crimean Tartars were forcibly displaced by Stalin during the 1940s. Most were forced out of the Ukraine to what is now Uzbekistan. Today, the Tartars make up only about 12 per cent of the population of the Crimean peninsula, Ukrainians 23 per cent and Russians 61 per cent. Many of the latter two nationalities were transported to the Crimean Peninsula following the displacement and given the Tartars’ houses and other property. With the fall of the Soviet Union, some 260 000 Crimean Tartars have returned to the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine and are living in squatter settlements near their former properties. Unfortunately, police and local residents have clashed with the returning Tartars in an effort to evict them.186 ICESCR: Yes ICCPR: Yes 1OP-ICCPR: Yes European Convention: Yes Constitution: Yes

186 United Nations Development Report (2002); Greta Uehling, How Do You Account for the Homing Drive of the Crimean Tartars? (Winter 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

3 Threatened or Planned Forced Evictions

Africa BOTSWANA • The Government of Botswana defied world opinion in April 2002 and urged the country’s High Court to dismiss a lawsuit by 243 members of two hunter-gatherer tribes who are fighting their eviction from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. The Basarwa and San tribes, who live in the 52 000-square kilometre game reserve, accuse the Government of undermining the viability of their already fragile culture by forcing them to abandon the graves of their ancestors. The Basara and San have lived in the region for up to 40 000 years. The huntergatherers, who are amongst the last in the world, claim the Government has unconstitutionally cut off key services to the reserve, including water supplies and clinics, and have asked the court to order their immediate reinstatement. The government has traditionally supplied the San and Basarwa with water, medical care, oldage pensions and destitute allowances, but claims that it can better sustain services to them outside of the semi-desert reserve. The reserve, the largest in Botswana, was established in the 1960s.187

GHANA • According to FoodFirst Information Action Network, with the construction of the Bui hydroelectric dam in Western Ghana, the submerging of land could lead to the displacement of between 650 and 4 500 persons, depending on the dam height. Approximately 30 000 people living downstream would lose important food resources, as the river’s fish constitute a major local food supply. The dam is expected to severely affect the villagers’ fishing grounds, as native fish species and their spawning grounds will be destroyed.188 So far, the Government of Ghana has not presented any compensation plan nor has the Environmental Impact Assessment, which must be carried out before the construction works start, been finalised. The assessment has only recently been commissioned by the Volta River Authority and there is no certainty that it will be an independent study. The population likely to be affected by the dam has never been consulted about the project.189

KENYA • Some fear that a proposed plan known as the Collaborative Nairobi Slum Upgrading Programme may actually lead to forced evictions and other problems for current slum dwellers. The goal of the Programme is to improve security of tenure, housing, infrastructure services and the livelihoods of slum dwellers. Part of its objective is to eliminate forced eviction of slum dwellers. Many, however, claim that such programmes result in displacement of the poor dwellers presently living in slums as they are driven out by wealthier individuals who can afford market-rate rents. Ms Naomi Lare of the Kibera slums says: “There is something sinister when it comes to upgrading slums. When they upgrade these houses, the beneficiaries are people from outside who are able to pay rents at current market rates and not the slum dwellers.” She added: “This is just another way of driving us out of the slums.” Past experiences bear this out. For example, when the Majengo slums were upgraded, this attracted the rich, who later bought out the original dwellers. As the Government of Kenya has partnered with the United Nations Programme for Human Settlements, however, it is hoped that the Collaborative Nairobi Slum Upgrading Programme will be carried out in full compliance with international human rights standards.

187 African Eye News Service, Hunter-Gatherers Fight Eviction Order From Popular Game Reserve (11 April 2002). 188 FoodFirst Information Action Network (FIAN) (16 August 2001). 189 Id.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

Fears remain, however, particularly after Nairobi Deputy Mayor Joe Aketch maintained that nobody should claim ownership to land where slums are, stating: “This land belongs to the Government and has only been given to people on a temporary basis. Therefore when the Government comes up with a project like the one in the process now, it will repossess its land and work out a formula how people are to benefit.”190 Civil society organisations can play an important role by constantly monitoring the situation in order to ensure full compliance with international and domestic law, including full participation by the slum dwellers themselves. • Cost-cutting measures deemed necessary by the International Monetary Fund threaten over 5 000 Kenyan civil servants with eviction from government-leased houses in line with a new policy abolishing governmentfinanced accommodation. Once evicted, the civil servants will purportedly receive a housing allowance. The Kenyan press reports, however, that this compensation will be far below the prevailing market rent for the kind of properties and the areas where many affected civil servants reside. Africa News stated that most civil servants will have to move to the slums. The government says it hopes to save Ksh1.4 billion ($US 17.5 million) per year in this manner, clearly a poor return for the upheavals it is about to cause in the lives of these public servants and their families. The East African newspaper stated that “civil servants living in the government-owned Hazina Estate in Nairobi’s South C suburb recently pointed out the disruptions they would face should they be forced to move out because they cannot pay the government the market rent.191 • The Ogiek and Maasai communities living in Enoosupukia face imminent eviction by the Rift Valley Provincial Government. The communities claim that the area is their ancestral land while the Government claims it is a water catchment area. Community elders, mainly from the Ogiek and Pulko, Ildamat and Keekonyoki Maasai clans, told a public meeting that their forefathers had been buried in the land, and they would not leave it. The Ogiek Rural Integral Project director, Mr Saina ole Sena, said that the Ogiek and the Maasai were spared eviction in 1992 because they were living on their ancestral land. The Ogiek had lived in the forest for centuries and it was shocking that the government now wanted to evict them, he added.192 The situation is pending.

LESOTHO • Africa’s largest infrastructure project – the Lesotho Highlands Water Project – is a massive, multi-dam scheme built to divert water from Lesotho’s Maloti Mountains to South Africa’s industrial Gauteng Province. The first phases of the World Bank-supported project involve the construction of three large dams which, when completed, will dispossess more than 30 000 rural farmers of their homes as well as their agricultural fields and grazing lands. In an effort to prevent the permanent impoverishment of these people, the governments of South Africa and Lesotho promise in the project treaty that affected people “will be enabled to maintain a standard of living not inferior to that obtaining at the time of first disturbance.” Evidence suggests that standards of living for the majority of project-affected people are in fact declining. Few of those already displaced have been able to re-establish livelihoods, and displaced persons have been hurried into resettlement sites without access to water and other resources. 193

190 191 192 193

The Nation, Fresh Fears Over Slums Project (10 May 2002). The East African, Civil Servants On the Street, (16 April 2001). The Nation, Communities Defy Quit Order (10 April 2002). International Rivers Network, Lesotho Highlands Water Project, Senqu River, Lesotho (2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

NAMIBIA • In the settlement at Kransneus, 50 km south of Windhoek, more than 200 communal farmers, many of whom were born on the land in question and have lived there for decades, face forced eviction at the hands of a commercial farmer who claims that a deed dating to colonial times gives him ownership of the land. The commercial farmer, however, refuses to show the deed to the affected community. The farmers reside on 2 400 hectares of land where they raise cattle, sheep and goats. If uprooted, the community would have difficulty finding water and grazing areas for their herds. The Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation is currently investigating the issue.

NIGERIA “We should not allow these, [because of] our tendencies of tolerating slums and ramshackled settlements, to become an eyesore.” - Nigerian Minister of the Federal Capital Territory

• Thousands in Lagos face forced eviction in the coming year, partly in an effort to remove an “eyesore” ahead of planned international events. In January 2002, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Alhaji Mohammed AbbaGana discussed his administration’s plans to commence yet another round of housing demolition in the poorest sections of Lagos, even as he rationalised the new building policy that restricts the construction of new homes in the Central Area part of the city. Speaking to the media in Abuja, Abba-Gana noted that the move was in concert with President Olusegun Obasanjo’s recent directive during his official tour of Lagos to the effect that all socalled illegal structures within the right of way should be demolished. In addition, he said, the decision also hinged on the envisaged standards expected of the city in view of the forthcoming 2003 All African Games as well as the Commonwealth Conference to be staged in Abuja within the same period. “At the All African Games, we expect over 10 000 people coming to the games. We should not allow these, [because of] our tendencies of tolerating slums and ramshackled settlements, to become an eyesore. Besides that, we have the Commonwealth conference so you can see why I am worried about the existence of illegal structures,” he said.194 • In June 2002, Shelter Rights Initiative (SRI) reported a threat to demolish Ajegunle, a sprawling slum settlement in Lagos.195

SOUTH AFRICA • Residents of the informal settlements of Freedom Park, Thembelihle, Orange Farm, Katlehong and Protea South near Gauteng fear forced eviction. Members of the communities have met with the National Land Committee offices in Braamfontein to discuss what action to take to resist eviction by city councils in their areas. All complained they were being threatened with eviction but that the government had not yet developed the sites to which it wanted to move them.196 • Approximately 80 squatters face forced eviction near Hooggenoeg, after the Grahamstown High Court agreed to allow the Makana Municipality to forcibly evict them from the Makana commonage. The action judge approved the Municipality’s motion when the squatters, whose lawyer withdrew from the case just prior to the court date, failed to appear in court.197 194 195 196 197

All Africa News, FCT: Why We Constituted Demolition Committee - Abba-Gana (14 January 2002). Daily Champion, SRI Scores Obasanjo Low On Housing (12 June 2002). South African Press Association, Landless People Threaten to Boycott Next National Poll (28 June 2002). East Cape News, Court Rules in Favour of Makana in Squatter Removal Row (18 April 2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

UGANDA • According to a report by the World Bank Inspection Panel, the construction of the Bujagali Dam, a project by the U.S.-based AES Corporation, will constitute five violations of World Bank policies, including those related to involuntary displacement. The other four violations relate to economic evaluation of investment operations, environmental assessment, natural habitats and disclosure of information. The report found that persons will not be compensated for loss of their livelihoods, in violation of World Bank guidelines.198 • Over 200 families face eviction near Entebbe Airport. The evictions were halted to enable the Entebbe Town Council to discuss the issue with the Ministry of Defence and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces. The imminent eviction follows a protracted dispute between the army and Entebbe Municipal Council over the ownership of the estate, commonly known as ‘Fire Quarters’. “Under the law, a tenant is given a three-month quit notice, but here we were only given a few days to leave,” one resident said.199 • The Uganda Railways Corporation (URC) on 28 April 2002 threatened to evict all persons who live on URC land. A spokesperson said that persons had put up structures along the 11 kilometer Kampala – Port Ball line, particularly in Industrial Area, Namuwongo and Soweto.200 • On 20 March 2002 the Kitgum Diocese ordered some 40 families – with members numbering well into the hundreds – occupying its land to vacate within a month or be prosecuted. “We have been staying on this land for over 80 years and we do not have any other land. How can the church give us only one month to vacate? Where shall we go?” an angry resident said. A source said the church ordered the eviction because some residents had blocked the diocese from carrying out its projects, including an extension to the Rev. Jabuloni Isoke Memorial College.201

ZIMBABWE • Nearly 4 000 commercial farmers, along with thousands of farm workers, continue to face the threat of eviction in Zimbabwe. On 24 June 2002, the Government of Zimbabwe ordered the farmers to cease operations or face prosecution. The farmers were given until mid-July to leave their properties.202 About 22 000 hectares were planted with winter wheat by commercial farmers this year; the crop is supposed to be harvested in September. In a period when the country faces famine, more then 160 farmers in Matabeleland South are threatened with arrest and forcible eviction for failing to comply with the government order.203 • The Zimbabwe Homeless Peoples’ Federation has reported the forced eviction of hundreds of families and the destruction of their homes in and around the Zimbabwean capital, Harare. These actions have been taken following a resolution of the Harare Municipal Council. These actions directly violate Zimbabwe’s legal obligations under its Constitution as well as international law, including in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Zimbabwe ratified in 1991. The resolution calls for further forced evictions and destruction of homes. Indeed, one member of the Council, which has no mandate from the people as it was simply appointed by the Minister of Local Government, has been quoted as saying: “Our resolution to demolish ‘illegal’ structures still stands and we are not going to stop at anything. The Commission has 198 199 200 201 202 203

See International Rivers Network, World Rivers Review, Vol. 17, No. 3 (June 2002). New Vision, Army Suspends Entebbe Airbase Evictions (8 July 2002). The Monitor, Railways to Evict Encroachers (30 April 2002). New Vision, Kitgum Diocese to Evict 100 Squatters (11 April 2002). Financial Gazette, U.S. Slams Eviction of White Farmers (11 July 2002). The Daily News, Defiant Farmers Continue Operations (26 June 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

no sympathy for whoever violates the by-laws and is going heavy-handed on such issues.” Over 500 000 Harare residents stand to lose their homes if the Council continues its policy of forcibly evicting and demolishing the homes of its residents. • Villagers face forced eviction from their ancestral lands in Masvingo, which are presently owned by the Reformed Church in Zimbabwe (RCZ), in order to pave way for construction of the Great Zimbabwe University. The villagers, who claim to be the guardians of the Great Zimbabwean national monument located close by, occupied the land at the height of the farm invasions and now face a court order to vacate the area.204 • In the first week of April 2002, so-called war veterans stepped up a campaign to seize more land from commercial farmers by ordering more than 800 to vacate their properties by the end of that month or be forcibly evicted. War veterans’ leader Andrew Ndlovu said the ultimatums, which are illegal, had been issued to all commercial farmers still remaining in Mashonaland East province. He said his organization was about to complete issuing similar ultimatums to all commercial farmers in Mashonaland West province. More than 80 000 farm workers will be forcibly evicted and lose their jobs if the so-called veterans succeed in evicting the 800 farmers. Up to 300 000 jobs will be lost if they eventually evict all commercial farmers in the area.205

Americas ARGENTINA Structural adjustment policies and foreign debt, particularly as linked to agreements with the International Monetary Fund, have devastated the Argentine economy. The structural adjustment policies have had a particularly devastating effect on the Government of Argentina’s ability to fulfil its economic and social rights obligations, including its obligation to fulfil the right to adequate housing. Presently, one third of Argentina’s GDP goes to debt payments, one third to pensions, and the remaining third to social programmes including housing, education and health care. Severe cuts in such programmes continue to be carried out, and the circumstances have already resulted in the eviction of thousands of persons who can no longer afford their rents. Many thousands more are at continued risk of forced eviction. • In the Buenos Aires barrio of Almagro, in May 2002, the Neighborhood Assembly voted to stand with the neighbours of Yatay Street against their eviction, in support of a call made by the Polo Obrero, a mutual aid organisation. A march and rally, in the framework of the growing and powerful unity of “pots and picketers,” successfully prevented the eviction. The residents, however, may yet face eviction as the economic situation deteriorates.

BRAZIL • The construction of the Santa Isabel dam, the first dam planned for construction on the Araguaia River in the Brazilian Amazon, would flood an ecological reserve and destroy the culture of the Suruí-Aiwekar indigenous people, in addition to displacing 7 000 people. The dam is planned to provide electicity for aluminium plants owned or operated by several trans-national corporations, including the Alcoa (US), BHP Billiton (UK/Australia), and Cia. Vale do Rio Doce (Brazil) aluminium companies.206

204 The Daily News, Villagers Vow Not to Move From Church Land (12 April 2002). 205 Financial Gazette, War Veterans Issue 800 Farmers With Ultimatums (11 April 2002). 206 International Rivers Network, International coalition urges aluminum companies to scrap plans for Amazon dams (27 November 2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• The Guardian reported in 22 May 2002 that in Brazil, two fishing villages near the coastal resort town of Fortaleza are fighting for their land. In one, Tatajuba, which was recently voted one of the world’s top 10 beach sites by the Washington Post, a village of 150 families has gone to the courts to try to show that a real estate agency illegally took possession of publicly-protected land where they live. A company wants to build a 5 000hectare “ecological resort catering for 1 500 tourists” in their place.207 In Prainha do Canto Verde, a village of 1 100 fishing and farming families, the community is also defending itself against speculators who, they say, bought beach land deceptively from fishing families and then registered the land for clearance. “It wasn’t illegal, but the fishing families can’t read and didn’t know what was happening,” says Rene Schaerer, a US public policy adviser working with the community.208 • Nearly 5 000 small land-holders and workers from 47 communities face eviction from their land in order to make way for the construction of the Hidroelectrica de Irapé hydroelectric dam, in Alto Jequitinhonha. Among the affected communities is the Afro-Brazilian Porto Coris community. The operating Government-owned company Companhia Energética de Minas Gerais (CEMIG), has offered grossly inadequate compensation.209 • Expansion of the Alcântara spaceport, a project designed as a satellite launching site some 2 000 kilometres northeast of Brasilia, threatens to displace several villages, mostly inhabited by Afro-Brazilians who are the descendents of escaped slaves. The Government of Brazil recently entered into a bilateral treaty with the Government of the United States which will likely result in the rapid expansion of Alcântara spaceport. Many of these communities were established over 200 years ago and involve cultures with very close relationships with the land. When the project began in the 1980s, several villages were displaced against their will, and it appears that future displacement will be contrary to the desires and needs of the affected communities. Facing imminent threat are the 160 residents of the Canelatiwa settlement, located less then five kilometers from the present launching site.

CANADA “In 1999 this policy in Canada was condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee and Canada has given it commitments that it will end the practice of extinguishment. In spite of this, Canada continues, as we speak, to demand extinguishment, increasingly in the form of a policy that freezes aboriginal rights and denies future recognition of rights as determined by constitutional change or by the Canadian or International Courts and denies aboriginal access to the courts to assert these rights. Canada has yet to take up our invitation to recognize this fact and to fundamentally change its policy of extinguishment for a policy of inclusion and cooperation.” - Grand Chief of the Cree Nations, 26 November 2002

• The second phase of the James Bay Project was approved in 2002, despite the fact that the first phase, consisting of the construction of hydroelectric dams along the La Grande, Eastmain and Rupert Rivers, destroyed an estimated 176 000 acres of indigenous Cree lands and displaced 2 715 villagers of the Cree Nations of Cisasibi in 1980. Currently, the Inuit and Cree living near the St. James Project are gradually being forced off their lands as levels of methyl mercury, leached from the land by the dams’ flooding, has raised toxicity levels in the fish and water to over six times what is considered safe. 207 Guardian newspaper, A rapid growth in eco-tourism has been at the expense of indigenous peoples, 22 May 2002. 208 Id. 209 FoodFirst Information Action Network (FIAN) (25 January 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

The second phase will entail the construction of a 1 200 megawatt EM-1 dam – which is being constructed on the Cree Grand Chief’s family’s hunting lands – followed by the EM-1A/Rupert Diversion Project. A total of approximately 1 000 square kilometres of flooding of Innuit/Cree land resulting from these dams will force the displacement of several indigenous Cree villages, flood hunting and burial grounds, and leach methyl mercury from the soils into the waterways, fish, wildlife and inhabitants of the area. The native Cree communities to be evicted and displaced include the Nemaska (306 residents) and the Eastmain (483 residents). If the currently proposed Great Whale dam complex is approved, similar flooding impacts will be felt in the Cree Nation of Whapmagoostui (720 residents) and the Innuit community of Kuujjuaraapik (579 residents).210

COLOMBIA • Hundreds of thousands of persons in many parts of Colombia face threats to their personal security, including the threat of forced eviction. For example, the 5 000 strong U’wa indigenous community has consistently faced forced eviction to make way for oil exploration and development by Occidental Petroleum, a U.S. oil company. Leaders of the U’wa community have vowed that they will not abandon their farms, and placed sole responsibility on Occidental Petroleum and the Government of Colombia if any harm comes to them.212 Fortunately, due to strong local and international pressure, Occidental Petroleum has stopped oil exploration in the area and halted the plan to evict the U’wa people. This victory, however, may be temporary and the community continues to live in risk of displacement.

EL SALVADOR • Several villages and homes are under threat of demolition to make way for a hydroelectric dam and reservoir to be constructed as part of the Plan Puebla Panama (see Mexico below). The El Chaparral Dam, to be constructed on the Rio Torola, has already resulted in death threats against persons leading opposition to the project.213

GUATEMALA • The Plan Puebla Panama (see Mexico below) will lead to mass displacement of hundreds of mostly indigenous communities. Plan Puebla Panama is a centerpiece of Mexican President Vicente Fox’s plan to create an integrated neo-liberal economic zone from the Yucatan Peninsula to Panama. The Plan envisions some 70 new dams in the Chiapas, Mexico and El Petén, Guatemala region, including the Boca del Cerro hydroelectric project, to be undertaken jointly by the Government of Guatemala and the Government of Mexico, which threaten 49 separate indigenous communities. The Boca del Cerro dam is but one of six planned for the Rio Usumacinta alone. These dams would have the effect of dislocating and disrupting the Indigenous peoples of the region.

210 211 212 213

Craig Minowa, Environmental Association for Great Lakes Education (EAGLE) (December 2002). International Rivers Network, IRN’s Bio-Bio Campaign (2001). NADIR (24 May 2001). Monti Aguirre, International Rivers Network (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

Further, these displaced populations would be forced into becoming a convenient workforce for the assembly plants in the industrial centres being envisaged by the Plan Puebla Panama.214

HONDURAS • The construction of the El Tigre hydroelectric dam, a project of both the Government of Honduras and the Government of El Salvador to be carried out in the context of the Plan Puebla Panama (see Mexico below), will likely result in the eviction and displacement of 40 000 persons.

MEXICO “Hydroelectric dams supply electricity to factories, but they also flood valleys where people live and work. Transportation mega-projects move goods, but they also bulldoze farmer’s land. Where do the people go? They go to the factories. They exchange their land for a paltry pay check, their self-sufficiency for job insecurity, and their harvest for hunger. It is not just their land but also their labour that is necessary to make the Plan Puebla Panama work.” - Charles Warpehoskit, Nicaragua Network

• The Plan Puebla Panama will lead to mass displacement of hundreds of mostly indigenous communities. Plan Puebla Panama is a centerpiece of Mexican President Vicente Fox’s plan to create an integrated neo-liberal economic zone from the Yucatan Peninsula to Panama. Plan Puebla Panama calls for, among other things, the construction of hydroelectric dams, a new port on the Gulf of Mexico, a major freight railway to Salina Cruz on the Pacific Ocean, a new railway and highway network, and improvements to the port in Salina Cruz. The railway would be flanked by assembly plants to assemble the unfinished goods being manufactured in the US and Europe before they would be reshipped out to the Asian and West Coast markets for sale. In addition, there are plans for industrial shrimp farms, tree plantations, oil refineries, and smelters along this corridor. To power this and other mega-projects, the Plan envisions some 70 new dams in the Chiapas, Mexico and Petan, Guatemala region. These dams would have the additional effect of dislocating and disrupting the Indigenous populations of the region, many of which have a long history of resistance against the exploitation of the Governments and business entities of Mexico and Guatemala. Further, these displaced populations would be forced into becoming a convenient workforce for the assembly plants in the industrial centers being envisaged by the Plan Puebla Panama.215 • There have been extremely alarming reports, in the newspaper La Jornada and from the affected communities themselves, to the effect that the Government of Mexico is planning to use the military and police forces to forcibly evict the residents of the indigenous communities living inside the Montes Azules Reserve in the southern State of Chiapas. As of mid-2002, 32 communities faced a possibly immediate crisis. Twenty-six of these are Zapatista communities (Zapatista civilian supporters) which are part of the Ricardo Flores Magón Autonomous Municipality and of the Tierra y Libertad Autonomous Municipality (in the south-southeastern edge of the Montes Azules Reserve). Six of the communities reportedly belong to the independent campesino

214 Global Exchange, Foro por la Vida, Guatemala, Plan Puebla Panama and Indigenous Survival (17 March 2002). 215 Global Exchange, Foro por la Vida, Guatemala, Plan Puebla Panama and Indigenous Survival (17 March 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

producers’ organization ARIC-Independiente (It has been estimated that about 40 per cent of the persons likely to be affected by an eventual eviction are linked to ARIC-Independiente.) There are also reports of three other communities being affected; two of these are communities of supporters of PRI (the Party of the Institutional Revolution – the former governing party in Mexico and Chiapas) and one community has ties to the independent campesino organization CIOAC. The majority of the residents of these communities are unwilling to leave. Many of the communities have ejidal land titles which antedate the 1978 creation of the Montes Azules Reserve. Others have titles which were issued during the years from 1986 to 1989, in a governmental response to campesinos’ demands for land. Still others are displaced persons, with land elsewhere, who have fled from their homes because of military and paramilitary violence.216 According to community leaders, the evictions are planned to pave the way for the Plan Puebla Panama, which is a mega-development plan, promoted by the Government of Mexico and supported by the Inter-American Development Bank and private investors as well as foreign governments, involving the southern states of Mexico and all the countries of Central America. Plan Puebla Panama, for example, calls for the construction of over 70 hydroelectric dams in Chiapas, Mexico alone, which will lead to mass eviction and displacement.

NICARAGUA • The village of Monkey Point is under threat of demolition to make way for a “dry canal” (rail freight transportation line) to be constructed as part of the planned Plan Puebla Panama.217

PARAGUAY • More than 7 000 people of Puerto Casado, Paraguay face the threat of eviction. The affected community, many of whom are indigenous, have been living in the area for more than 1 000 years and were working for the Carlos Casado tannin company. At the end of the 1980s, the company faced a financial crisis. Since then, the people employed by the company have been struggling for their right to use the urban area and the land surrounding their homes in order to set up farming activities and other forms of sustainable development. On 11 November 2000, the population was informed without prior notice that the land (400 000 hectares) and all farming products including cattle had been sold to Atenil, S.A., a company belonging to the Moon sect. Since late November, the people have been demanding that the government expropriate 158 000 hectares of land for their use. They have brought their claim to the Senate´s Chamber of the National Congress, where it is pending.218

PERU • The planned construction of a fourth ring road around the capital of Lima threatened hundreds of families. Fortunately, a civil society coalition has formed to address this threat, but it remains to be seen how successful it will be.

216 SJC Urgent Action (25 March 2002). 217 Network Opposed to the Plan Puebla Panama (NoPPP), Plan Puebla Panama (2002). 218 FoodFirst Information Action Network (FIAN) (22 July 2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East BANGLADESH • The Guardian reported on 22 May 2002 that in the Moulvibaza district of Bangladesh, over 1 000 families of the Khasi and Garoare indigenous groups face eviction from their ancestral lands for the development of a 1 500-acre eco-park. “We were born here and grew up here. We have been living here for hundreds of years... we will not leave this forest,” said Khasi headman Anil Yang Yung in a public demonstration during a hunger strike in Dhaka last February. “We cannot survive if we are evicted from the forest.”219 • With the declaration of additional reserved forests, the Government of Bangledesh is seeking to establish control over an even larger part of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. This means that another 200 000 persons are likely to face eviction from their lands.220 • COHRE became aware in 2001 that the Government of West Bengal and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation had jointly decided to excavate the Tolly Nulla River and that the plan will result in the forced eviction of approximately 15 000 families now residing on the banks of the Nulla River, some for over 50 years. Working in collaboration with other organizations, COHRE successfully prevented the evictions. Those living near the Tolly Nulla River, however, still face an uncertain future and remain fearful that they may yet be forcibly evicted from their homes.

CHINA Olympic Games • After Beijing won the right to host the 2008 Olympics, entire districts were demolished for the construction of new sporting facilities. In many cases, the residents received no compensation. There are growing fears that property developers, with government approval, will cause further mass evictions before 2008, and it has been reported that the Government has told the courts to dismiss all land compensation cases.221 Tens of thousands face forced eviction in order to pave the way for construction associated with the 2008 Olympic Games. The Asian Coalition for Housing Rights has estimated that some 50 000 families will be evicted in preparation for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.222 COHRE has already begun to mobilise against these planned evictions and has urged the Government of China not to make the same tragic mistakes as other Governments have prior to convening international events, and to use the opportunity to improve housing rights, not decimate them. Three Gorges Dam • If completed, the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze would be the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. It would stretch 2 150 meters across and tower 185 meters above the world’s third longest river. Its reservoir would be over 600 kilometers long and force the displacement of as many as 1.9 million persons. Resettlement on this scale is impossible. Not only are communities destroyed, but the cities and towns that are forced to absorb the migrants face economic and social upheaval. Construction began in 1994 and is scheduled to take 20 years; the project is now expected to cost over US$24 billion. In 1989, strong citizen opposition to the project in China forced the People’s Congress to suspend plans for the dam, but the project was swiftly resurrected by Premier Li Peng in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square. Much of what project opponents had forecast in 1989 is in full view for the world to see. The project is currently facing massive corruption, spiralling costs, 219 220 221 222

Guardian newspaper, A rapid growth in eco-tourism has been at the expense of indigenous peoples, 22 May 2002. Global IDP Project, Government expansion of ‘Reserve Forests’ in the CHT displaces the tribal population (2001). New York Times, Olympic Land Grab,(8 July 2001). Asian Coalition on Housing Rights.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

technological problems, major resettlement difficulties – all raising questions regarding the wisdom of pursuing the project further. The export credit agencies of Switzerland, France, Germany and Canada are supporting the project. U.S. investment banks, including Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Salomon Smith Barney of Citigroup, Chase Manhattan, and Merrill Lynch have financed the dam through the underwriting of China Development Bank (CDB) bonds, a government-run development bank that funds infrastructure construction. Approximately 65 per cent of the Three Gorges Dam construction costs are financed by the CDB. Goldman Sachs & Co and CS First Boston are also involved. Their $1 billion PRC general obligation bond offering at the end of 1998 reportedly funnelled $200 million to the dam.223

FIJI • Residents of the Deo Dutt settlement in Raiwasa face eviction. Although the Government of Fiji has provided alternate land for resettlement, the adequacy of that land remains in question. Specifically, members of the community facing eviction are concerned that there is no proper water connection in the resettlement areas. Furthermore, the community has not been fully consulted during the eviction process.224

INDIA • For over a decade, villagers have waged an intense battle to stop dams on India’s Narmada River. The Narmada Valley Development Project would include 30 major dams and 3 000 smaller dams. India’s Sardar Sarovar Project has gained international notoriety due to intense opposition by villagers. About 200 000 people would be displaced for the reservoir; hundreds of thousands more will lose land or livelihood due to related developments. A disproportionate number of oustees are tribal people. Thousands of persons already displaced are struggling to survive on cramped plots with no arable land or source of livelihood. Faced with these future prospects, villagers have vowed to remain on their lands and face submergence behind the partly-built dam rather than face a life of certain destitution.225 • The Maan Dam, being constructed on the Narmada River in Madhya Pradesh State, when complete, will flood 17 villages and displace approximately 5 000 persons.226 • Some 50 000 persons face imminent forced eviction in Calcutta, the evictions possibly taking place before the end of 2002.227 • Twenty-eight tribal families of the Kol community are now living under constant threat of imminent forceful eviction from their agricultural land by the local forest authorities in the village of Padaha in Madhya Pradesh State, India. FoodFirst Information Action Network (FIAN) has reported that the local revenue department has collaborated with the forest authorities and abused its power by taking away the legal land-entitlement documents from these families in the name of updating the records. As all of these 28 families depend mainly on agriculture, alienation of their agricultural land will lead them to hunger and starvation.228

223 224 225 226 227 228

International Rivers Network, Three Gorges Dam, Yangtze River, China (2002). News Limited (29 September 2002). International Rivers Network, Narmada River Dams, India (2002). International Rivers Network, World Rivers Review, Vol 17, No. 3 (June 2002). Subrata Sankar Bagchi, Lecturer in Anthropology, Bangabasi Evening College, Under Calcutta University. FIAN (15 March 2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

• The Indian Centre for Human Rights and the Law has reported a number of (potential) human rights violations against the Irula Adivasis (tribal peoples) in the Coimbatore District of Tamil Nadu. The Irula Adivasis are protesting against the establishment of the Coimbatore Zoological Park and Conservation Centre (CZP), which would lead to their displacement from the surrounding lands. On 25 March 2001, the home of one of the leading Irula Adivasis activists was burnt down in an increasing climate of repeated physical threats and property destruction to force the Irula Adivasis to give up their claims to the land. • Mr L.M. Menezes, co-ordinator of the Chennai Slum Dwellers Rights Movement (CSDRM), is leading a campaign against the planned eviction of 33 000 families (approximately 200 000 people) living along the city’s waterways, claiming that most of the families could be accommodated at the present location if proper basic facilities including sanitation were built. He emphasised that past resettlement schemes for slum dwellers have been disastrous. Menezes referred to the 60 000 tenements constructed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board which are now in a dilapidated condition and unsafe. Demonstrations were held by slum dwellers to express their anger against the Government for “denial of basic facilities such as safe drinking water, electricity, toilets, garbage collection, sanitation, crèche, and proper maintenance of tenements.”229 • The West Bengal Government and Calcutta Municipal Corporation are threatening to forcibly evict around 15 000 families (approximately 100 000 individuals) living along a canal in the city. Most of the families have been there for some 50 years or more. Grassroots organisations and NGOs have launched mass demonstrations and court cases. The Government offered to re-house 850 families. The Government, however, has not offered compensation for the other affected families.230

INDONESIA • In November 2001, local police forces burned down 67 houses, destroyed crops and arrested 49 peasants in Cibaliung village, Cibaliung sub-district, Pandeglang Regency, Banten Province, Indonesia. The peasants’ land had been claimed by the State Forestry Company, Perum Perhutani, which had marginalized the peasants on their own land during the last two decades, and is now attempting to take over the whole village. The incident in November 2001 indicates that the land dispute between the peasant farmers and Perum Perhutani still persists today. As long as Perum Perhutani attempts to occupy the lands of the peasant farmers, the threat of forced eviction will continue for them.231 • The Jakarta City Governor, the police and military continue to disregard the 21 March 2002 decision of the Jakarta Central Court ordering them to stop confiscating the means of livelihood of poor people such as pedicabs, arresting them and street children, and forcibly evicting urban poor communities.232

229 The Hindu, 14 April 2001. 230 Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (2001). 231 NGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty, Indonesia: Peasant families struggle over land and their right to food in Cibaliung village, Pandeglang, Banten Province, Indonesia (22 April 2002). 232 Leaders and Organizers of Community Organization in Asia, ACTION – Indonesia (16 April 2002).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES The spate of forced evictions in Palestine shows no sign of abating. The Israeli Government continues to use laws that date back to 1945 when the area was a British protectorate in order to support the eviction of Palestinians from the occupied territories. The 1945 Defense (Emergency) Regulations include provisions against illegal immigration: establishing military tribunals to try civilians without granting the right of appeal; allowing sweeping searches and seizures; prohibiting publication of books and newspapers; demolishing houses; detaining individuals administratively for an indefinite period; sealing off particular territories; and imposing curfew. Upon occupation of the territories in 1967, the Military Governor in the Occupied Territories issued a military order “freezing” the legal situation then existing there. Israel argues that the Defense Regulations were part of the domestic law in the Occupied Territories prior to occupation. To strengthen this position, Regional Commanders in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip issued orders holding that the Defense Regulations were valid in the Occupied Territories. Over the years, Israel has used these regulations extensively in the Occupied Territories. The Regulations serve as the legal basis for the demolition and sealing of hundreds of houses. In addition, the regulations also serve to deport residents, allow for the administrative detention of thousands of persons, and impose closures and curfews on towns and villages. The Government of Israel continued its practice of forced eviction and housing demolition throughout 2001 and 2002, and many Palestinians continue to live under the imminent threat of forced eviction. The following are just some of the cases involving pending or threatened forced eviction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. • Human rights organizations assert that Israeli authorities have threatened to destroy some 28 000 Palestinian homes in Jerusalem alone.233

LAOS • The 50-meter-high Nam Theun 2 Dam, planned for the fourth largest tributary of the Mekong, is the largest and most controversial hydropower project planned for Laos. Situated only 50 km upstream from the already completed Nam Theun-Hinboun Dam, the $1.2 billion “build-own-transfer” scheme is being developed by Transfield Holdings of Australia, Electricite de France and two Thai companies in association with the Lao government. The World Bank has been heavily promoting Nam Theun 2 since it financed its feasibility study in 1989. Almost all of the dam’s 1 060 MW of generating capacity will be exported to Thailand. Approximately 4 500 persons will be displaced by the project. Reports from the Nam Theun area suggest that “consultation” has consisted largely of telling local people that the dam will be built and that they will benefit from it. A much greater number of families will be affected by the dam’s construction without being directly displaced. Up to 40 000 people living along the banks of the Xe Bangfai could be significantly affected due to increased flooding and reduction in fish species. Thousands more people living upstream along the Nam Theun, and along the Mekong between the confluence of the Nam Kading and Xe Bang Fai rivers, may also be affected. Many of these impacts cannot be mitigated.234

233 Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living on his visit to the occupied Palestinian territories, para. 7, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/5 (10 June 2002). 234 International Rivers Network, Nam Theun 2 Dam, Theun River, Laos (2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

LEBANON • The Central Fund for the Displaced announced in June 2002 that eviction of illegally occupied properties would be implemented immediately, with the use of force if necessary. According to the Fund’s president, the Displaced Affairs Squad in Beirut will evict people who have received compensation but failed to leave the properties in question. The evictions will also encompass those illegal occupants who were not eligible for compensation. No reports on the evictions have thus far been received.235

PAKISTAN • In early January of this year, Pakistan Railways demolished over 200 houses in Karachi for what was to be the start of a large forced eviction that could have seen thousands of homes illegally demolished. The threatened katcha abadi (urban slums), called the Railway Colonies, are home to a vast number of people who work in the poorly paid service-sectors of Karachi. • In early 2002, thousands of families in Karachi faced the imminent threat of forced eviction. Indeed, over 2 000 families were forcibly evicted on 21 and 22 January and their homes were bulldozed. Only ten of these were even offered compensation of any kind. By 31 January, the bulldozing had been temporarily stopped when many of the people effected went to the courts. The community has been trying to negotiate with the municipality and the company involved in building the expressway to ensure transparency throughout the process and the involvement of community members. They also call for a resettlement plan, as required by Pakistan’s international legal obligations. The government is planning to bulldoze over 25 000 housing units, 3 600 shops/commercial units, 50 mosques, 5 churches, 8 temples, 10 schools, 38 clinics, 1 hospital, and 66 factories. The Urban Resource Centre estimates that around 77 000 families will be effected, a total population of over 203 200 persons.236

PHILIPPINES • The Agno River has always been regarded as sacred by the indigenous Ibaloi people of Benguet. Known as their “cultural heartland,” the river valley has accomodated the small mines, farms and homes of the Ibaloi for at least five centuries. The San Roque Dam, currently under construction in Central Luzon, will permanently damage the Agno River, thereby destroying the lives and livelihoods of the Ibaloi. Most of the 35 000 indigenous Ibaloi, Kankanaey and Kalanguya people living upstream are fiercely opposed to the San Roque Dam, and say it will destroy their communities and livelihoods. They are concerned that high rates of sedimentation from mining and other land use in the watershed area will lead to increased flooding upstream of the reservoir, inundating their homes and burial sites and negatively impacting water quality. Already, more than 600 families have been evicted to make way for the dam. Many are struggling to survive in cramped quarters in a resettlement site, without any land to sustain them. The lives of another 200 families are being disrupted by excavation for the dam. They, too, will be forced from their lands.237 • The Urban Poor Associate of Manila reported that approximately 100 000 households may face forced eviction as part of a flood-control plan put forward by the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. The plan entails creating a ten-metre easement alongside the Pasig River as well as various infrastructure projects such as dikes. Although the flood-control plan may be necessary, the evictions must be carried out only if necessary and in accordance with the Philippines’ international legal obligations, including full consultation with the effected communities and the provision of alternative housing.238 235 236 237 238

Global IDP Project, Central Fund for the Displaced announced immediate eviction of illegally occupied property (June 2002) (6 June 2002). Homeless International, Eviction Alert Appeal: Karachi, Pakistan (28 January 2002). International Rivers Network, San Roque Dam, Agno River, Philippines (2002). Letter to COHRE dated 8 August 2002.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

THAILAND • Some 1 115 villages in the hill country of northern Thailand face eviction. Although delayed partly due to mass protests which took place in early 2002, the Government of Thailand is persisting in its aim to evict and displace the hill people. Indeed, several villagers have already been forcibly evicted in order to create pine and eucalyptus plantations.239

TURKMENISTAN • An elderly blind woman has been threatened with eviction from her flat in the town of Khazar (formerly Cheleken) on the Caspian Sea after hosting a Baptist service, which was raided by the political police on 16 December 2001. “They threatened her that if believers gather in her flat again, they will take it away from her,” declared a 20 December statement from the Khazar church.

VIET NAM • Some 11 000 families face eviction from the Thu Thiem Peninsula in District 2 of Ho Chi Minh City. The evictions are to be carried out as part of the Thu Thiem Urban Development Project, which entails the creation of new housing as well as infrastructure to attract employment and educational opportunities. The new construction will include high-rise apartment buildings, villas, and 30 to 100-storey office towers to house financial, trade and service enterprises. Those evicted will not be allowed to reside in the newly constructed housing, but rather will be resettled in other parts of District 2.240

Europe GREECE With the prospect of the Olympic Games taking place in Athens in 2004, Greece has decided to brush up its image, and to get rid of stray dogs and Roma camps that would unnecessarily disturb the visitors’ sight. - Cia Rinne, Dom Research Center (2002)

• Thousands face forced eviction in order to pave the way for construction associated with the 2004 Olympic Games. Construction for the Olympic Games is also seen as an excuse to forcibly evict and displace members of the Roma community, who consequently may be disproportionately affected by the Games. Indeed, The Dom Research Center reported that: “Especially with the prospect of the Olympic Games taking place in Athens in 2004, Greece has decided to brush up its image, and to get rid of stray dogs and Roma camps that would unnecessarily disturb the visitors’ sight. So more evictions in the greater Athens area are to be expected.”241 • The Greek Helsiki Monitor warned of repeated threats of eviction and harassment by municipal police of approximately forty Romani families living in appalling conditions in the area of Kalakonero, Rhodes. According to the statement of a 28-year-old Romani man living in the area, on 1 August 2001 municipal police visited the settlement and, without showing any official documents, informed local Roma that if they did not

239 Bangkok Post-Outlook, (23 July 2002). 240 Asia Pulse, HCM City, Vietnam to Create Urban Area, Relocatre 11 000 Households (3 December 2002). 241 Cia Rinne, The Situation of Roma in Greece, in Journal of the Dom Research Center, vol. 1, no. 6 (Spring/Summer 2002).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

leave by the following Monday, their dwellings would be demolished. When bulldozers did not show up that Monday, representatives from the community visited the municipality to inquire about their impending eviction. The representatives were then sent to the prefecture where they were told that the office was not aware of any pending eviction.242 • In August 2001, the police verbally ordered Roma from the Kalakonero area on Rhodes to vacate their settlement by 3 September 2001 or have their homes demolished. No demolition occurred though the residents were informed subsequently by authorities that a process of relocation for the settlement had begun. The Roma filed a complaint with the Greek ombudsman alleging that the pending eviction was illegal because contrary to Greek law the community had received no official relocation plan.243

HUNGARY • According to the Hungarian national daily newspaper Népszava of 9 April 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture and Regional Development has provided details of a five-year plan to eliminate or upgrade all Romani shantytowns in Hungary. There are approximately five hundred such settlements in Hungary, half of which face destruction under the plan, and the other half renovation. The scheme is to cost around 50 billion HUF (approximately 187 million euro) and is to be accompanied by massive infrastructure development. As of 11 July 2001, however, the project had not yet been approved by the government. Moreover, according to Népszava, there were no plans as to how the residents, the majority of whom are unemployed, will be able to pay rent and utility costs for the new homes. The National Gypsy Self-Government, an advisory body to the national government, was reportedly excluded from the planning of the scheme.244 It will be important for civil society to monitor this situation to ensure that the plan actually benefits all stake-holders and abides by international human rights standards and norms, including the right to adequate housing.

ITALY • Local authorities are reported as having stated that the Roma currently living in the Via Gordiani camp on the edge of Rome — which is not provided with electricity, running water or sanitation — will be moved, but have not provided details about a new location. On 26 February 2001, the daily newspaper Il Tempo reported, the regional director of urban planning as stating that, “the nomads of Via Gordiani must go.” Italian authorities frequently refer to Roma as “nomads.”245 • Some 800 to 1 000 Roma living in the Via Barzoghi camp near Milan are currently under threat of eviction and possible expulsion. On 9 October 2000, 230 Roma without residence permits who live in the camp reported that state police and carabinieri (police under the competence of the Ministry of Defence) had ordered them to leave the area. Five shacks and a tent were pulled down and personal belongings were destroyed. It is unclear whether the camp will be allowed to remain.

242 243 244 245

European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 4 (2001). Human Rights Watch, World Report 2002: Greece, New York: HRW (2002). Népszava (9 April 2001); see also European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights Nr. 2-3 (2001). European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 1 (2001).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO • Approximately 150 persons of Roma ethnicity face forced eviction from shacks located on hospital grounds where they have lived for some fifteen years. Over the years the families have carried out extensive improvements to the property, located on Zvecanska Street in Belgrade, including putting in power supplies and waste removal infrastructure. Many of the residents are elderly, ill or children. Serbian authorities have now begun eviction proceedings against the residents. Domestic law, in violation of Serbia’s international human rights obligations, seems to offer little protection. Advocates, including the European Roma Rights Center, are using international law to fight for the residents by bringing counter-claims against both the Government of Serbia and Montenegro and municipal authorities. The Government of Serbia and Montenegro is a State Party to both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guarantee housing rights including the prohibition of forced evictions. Under Article 16 paragraph 2 of the Yugoslav Federal Constitution, all ratified international treaties are binding and as such are an integral part of the domestic legal framework.246 v

TURKEY • The construction of the Yusefeli dam will result in the eviction and displacement of thousands. The dam is to be constructed by the British construction company Balfour Beatty. The project has been criticised on the grounds that it would deprive 30 000 persons, mainly Kurds, of their homes and/or land, flood hundreds of valuable archaeological sites and create health hazards such as malaria and toxic algae blooms.247 • The Government of Turkey may give its backing to a second dam-building project which could lead to the eviction of up to 15 000 persons, mainly belonging to Turkey’s large Georgian minority, from the town of Yusefeli and surrounding villages. The British construction company Amec, which is part of the consortium seeking to build the Yusefeli dam on the Coruh river in north-east Turkey, has asked for financial backing from the Export Credit Guarantee Department.248

UNITED KINGDOM • The Travellers Action Group reported that on 12 July 2001, a group of Roma numbering 18 families (approximately 127 people) with title to the Woodside Caravan Site at Hatch in Mid-Bedfordshire met with the Mid-Beds District Council. The purpose of the meeting was to ask for planning permission to convert the 152 touring trailer site to a much smaller permanent settlement. At the meeting, however, planning permission was reportedly denied and 180 000 British pounds (approximately 288 000 euros) was reportedly allocated to pay the costs of a private firm that was to handle the eviction of residents of the Woodside Caravan Site. The residents formed the Travellers Action Group and held a meeting and peaceful protest in nearby Biggleswade on 4 September 2001, according to the 9 September 2001 issue of the regional weekly Biggleswade Chronicle. Woodside residents have appealed against the decision of the local council to the High Court, while the Mid-Bedfordshire District Council is seeking an injunction from the same in support of its actions.249

246 247 248 249

European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 1 (2002). The Guardian, Anger at Plea for Dam Funds (12 July 2001). The Guardian, Anger at Plea for Dam Funds (12 July 2001). European Roma Rights Center, Roma Rights, Nr. 4 (2001).

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

4 United Nations General Comment No. 7 on Forced Evictions

United Nations General Comment No. 7 on forced evictions On 20 May 1997, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights unanimously adopted General Comment No. 7 on the practice of forced evictions. General Comment No. 7 provides the most farreaching pronouncement detailing the obligations of governments with respect to the practice of forced eviction. The General Comment outlines the prohibition on forced evictions under international human rights law, including not only the obligation of governments to refrain from carrying out forced evictions but the obligation to protect persons from forced evictions carried out by non-state actors such as corporations, international financial institutions and landlords.

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, GENERAL COMMENT NO. 7 ON THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING (ART. 11.1): FORCED EVICTIONS 1. In its General Comment No. 4 (1991), the Committee observed that all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. It concluded that forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant. Having considered a significant number of reports of forced evictions in recent years, including instances in which it has determined that the obligations of States parties were being violated, the Committee is now in a position to seek to provide further clarification as to the implications of such practices in terms of the obligations contained in the Covenant. 2. The international community has long recognized that the issue of forced evictions is a serious one. In 1976, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements noted that special attention should be paid to “undertaking major clearance operations should take place only when conservation and rehabilitation are not feasible and relocation measures are made”. In 1988, in the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/181, the “fundamental obligation [of Governments] to protect and improve houses and neighbourhoods, rather than damage or destroy them” was recognized. Agenda 21 stated that “people should be protected by law against unfair eviction from their homes or land”. In the Habitat Agenda Governments committed themselves to “protecting all people from, and providing legal protection and redress for, forced evictions that are contrary to the law, taking human rights into consideration; [and] when evictions are unavoidable, ensuring, as appropriate, that alternative suitable solutions are provided”. The Commission on Human Rights has also indicated that “forced evictions are a gross violation of human rights”. However, although these statements are important, they leave open one of the most critical issues, namely that of determining the circumstances under which forced evictions are permissible and of spelling out the types of protection required to ensure respect for the relevant provisions of the Covenant. 3. The use of the term “forced evictions” is, in some respects, problematic. This expression seeks to convey a sense of arbitrariness and of illegality. To many observers, however, the reference to “forced evictions” is a tautology, while others have criticized the expression “illegal evictions” on the ground that it assumes that the relevant law provides adequate protection of the right to housing and conforms with the Covenant, which is by no means always the case. Similarly, it has been suggested that the term “unfair evictions” is even more subjective by virtue of its failure to refer to any legal framework at all. The international community, especially in the context of the Commission on Human Rights, has opted to refer to “forced evictions”, primarily since all suggested alternatives also suffer from many such defects. The term “forced evictions” as used throughout

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

this general comment is defined as the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection. The prohibition on forced evictions does not, however, apply to evictions carried out by force in accordance with the law and in conformity with the provisions of the International Covenants on Human Rights. 4. The practice of forced evictions is widespread and affects persons in both developed and developing countries. Owing to the interrelationship and interdependency which exist among all human rights, forced evictions frequently violate other human rights. Thus, while manifestly breaching the rights enshrined in the Covenant, the practice of forced evictions may also result in violations of civil and political rights, such as the right to life, the right to security of the person, the right to non-interference with privacy, family and home and the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. 5. Although the practice of forced evictions might appear to occur primarily in heavily populated urban areas, it also takes place in connection with forced population transfers, internal displacement, forced relocations in the context of armed conflict, mass exoduses and refugee movements. In all of these contexts, the right to adequate housing and not to be subjected to forced eviction may be violated through a wide range of acts or omissions attributable to States parties. Even in situations where it may be necessary to impose limitations on such a right, full compliance with article 4 of the Covenant is required so that any limitations imposed must be “determined by law only insofar as this may be compatible with the nature of these [i.e. economic, social and cultural] rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society”. 6. Many instances of forced eviction are associated with violence, such as evictions resulting from international armed conflicts, internal strife and communal or ethnic violence. 7. Other instances of forced eviction occur in the name of development. Evictions may be carried out in connection with conflict over land rights, development and infrastructure projects, such as the construction of dams or other large-scale energy projects, with land acquisition measures associated with urban renewal, housing renovation, city beautification programmes, the clearing of land for agricultural purposes, unbridled speculation in land, or the holding of major sporting events like the Olympic Games. 8. In essence, the obligations of States parties to the Covenant in relation to forced evictions are based on article 11.1, read in conjunction with other relevant provisions. In particular, article 2.1 obliges States to use “all appropriate means” to promote the right to adequate housing. However, in view of the nature of the practice of forced evictions, the reference in article 2.1 to progressive achievement based on the availability of resources will rarely be relevant. The State itself must refrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law is enforced against its agents or third parties who carry out forced evictions (as defined in paragraph 3 above). Moreover, this approach is reinforced by article 17.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which complements the right not to be forcefully evicted without adequate protection. That provision recognizes, inter alia, the right to be protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference” with one’s home. It is to be noted that the State’s obligation to ensure respect for that right is not qualified by considerations relating to its available resources.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

9. Article 2.1 of the Covenant requires States parties to use “all appropriate means”, including the adoption of legislative measures, to promote all the rights protected under the Covenant. Although the Committee has indicated in its General Comment No. 3 (1990) that such measures may not be indispensable in relation to all rights, it is clear that legislation against forced evictions is an essential basis upon which to build a system of effective protection. Such legislation should include measures which (a) provide the greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land, (b) conform to the Covenant and (c) are designed to control strictly the circumstances under which evictions may be carried out. The legislation must also apply to all agents acting under the authority of the State or who are accountable to it. Moreover, in view of the increasing trend in some States towards the Government greatly reducing its responsibilities in the housing sector, States parties must ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate to prevent and, if appropriate, punish forced evictions carried out, without appropriate safeguards, by private persons or bodies. States parties should therefore review relevant legislation and policies to ensure that they are compatible with the obligations arising from the right to adequate housing and repeal or amend any legislation or policies that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Covenant. 10. Women, children, youth, older persons, indigenous people, ethnic and other minorities, and other vulnerable individuals and groups all suffer disproportionately from the practice of forced eviction. Women in all groups are especially vulnerable given the extent of statutory and other forms of discrimination which often apply in relation to property rights (including home ownership) or rights of access to property or accommodation, and their particular vulnerability to acts of violence and sexual abuse when they are rendered homeless. The non-discrimination provisions of articles 2.2 and 3 of the Covenant impose an additional obligation upon Governments to ensure that, where evictions do occur, appropriate measures are taken to ensure that no form of discrimination is involved. 11. Whereas some evictions may be justifiable, such as in the case of persistent non-payment of rent or of damage to rented property without any reasonable cause, it is incumbent upon the relevant authorities to ensure that they are carried out in a manner warranted by a law which is compatible with the Covenant and that all the legal recourses and remedies are available to those affected. 12. Forced eviction and house demolition as a punitive measure are also inconsistent with the norms of the Covenant. Likewise, the Committee takes note of the obligations enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocols thereto of 1977 concerning prohibitions on the displacement of the civilian population and the destruction of private property as these relate to the practice of forced eviction. 13. States parties shall ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions, and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasible alternatives are explored in consultation with the affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need to use force. Legal remedies or procedures should be provided to those who are affected by eviction orders. States parties shall also see to it that all the individuals concerned have a right to adequate compensation for any property, both personal and real, which is affected. In this respect, it is pertinent to recall article 2.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires States parties to ensure “an effective remedy” for persons whose rights have been violated and the obligation upon the “competent authorities (to) enforce such remedies when granted”.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

14. In cases where eviction is considered to be justified, it should be carried out in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of international human rights law and in accordance with general principles of reasonableness and proportionality. In this regard it is especially pertinent to recall General Comment 16 of the Human Rights Committee, relating to article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that interference with a person’s home can only take place “in cases envisaged by the law”. The Committee observed that the law “should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances”. The Committee also indicated that “relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted”. 15. Appropriate procedural protection and due process are essential aspects of all human rights but are especially pertinent in relation to a matter such as forced evictions which directly invokes a large number of the rights recognized in both the International Covenants on Human Rights. The Committee considers that the procedural protections which should be applied in relation to forced evictions include: (a) an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected; (d) especially where groups of people are involved, government officials or their representatives to be present during an eviction; (e) all persons carrying out the eviction to be properly identified; (f) evictions not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; (g) provision of legal remedies; and (h) provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redress from the courts. 16. Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available. 17. The Committee is aware that various development projects financed by international agencies within the territories of State parties have resulted in forced evictions. In this regard, the Committee recalls its General Comment No. 2 (1990) which states, inter alia, that “international agencies should scrupulously avoid involvement in projects which, for example ... promote or reinforce discrimination against individuals or groups contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, or involve large-scale evictions or displacement of persons without the provision of all appropriate protection and compensation. Every effort should be made, at each phase of a development project, to ensure that the rights contained in the Covenant are duly taken into account”. 18. Some institutions, such as the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have adopted guidelines on relocation and/or resettlement with a view to limiting the scale of and human suffering associated with forced evictions. Such practices often accompany large-scale development projects, such as dam-building and other major energy projects. Full respect for such guidelines, insofar as they reflect the obligations contained in the Covenant, is essential on the part of both the agencies themselves and States parties to the Covenant. The Committee recalls in this respect the statement in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action to the effect that “while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” (Part I, para. 10).

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

19. In accordance with the guidelines for reporting adopted by the Committee, State parties are requested to provide various types of information pertaining directly to the practice of forced evictions. This includes information relating to (a) the “number of persons evicted within the last five years and the number of persons currently lacking legal protection against arbitrary eviction or any other kind of eviction”, (b) “legislation concerning the rights of tenants to security of tenure, to protection from eviction” and (c) “legislation prohibiting any form of eviction”. 20. Information is also sought as to “measures taken during, inter alia, urban renewal programmes, redevelopment projects, site upgrading, preparation for international events (Olympics and other sporting competitions, exhibitions, conferences, etc.) ‘beautiful city’ campaigns, etc. which guarantee protection from eviction or guarantee rehousing based on mutual consent, by any persons living on or near to affected sites”. However, few States parties have included the requisite information in their reports to the Committee. The Committee therefore wishes to emphasize the importance it attaches to the receipt of such information. 21. Some States parties have indicated that information of this nature is not available. The Committee recalls that effective monitoring of the right to adequate housing, either by the Government concerned or by the Committee, is not possible in the absence of the collection of appropriate data and would request all States parties to ensure that the necessary data is collected and is reflected in the reports submitted by them under the Covenant.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

5 United Nations Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement (1997)

The Practice of Forced Evictions: United Nations Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement ADOPTED BY THE EXPERT SEMINAR ON THE PRACTICE OF FORCED EVICTIONS GENEVA, SWITZERLAND 11-13 JUNE 1997 PREAMBLE Recalling the human rights standards established pursuant to the International Bill of Human Rights, Whereas many international treaties, resolutions, decisions, general comments, judgments and other texts have recognized and reaffirmed that forced evictions constitute violations of a wide range of internationally recognized human rights, Recalling Economic and Social Council decision 1996/290, Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1993/77, and Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities resolution 1996/27, Reaffirming that under international law every State has the obligation to respect and ensure respect for human rights and humanitarian law, including obligations to prevent violations, to investigate violations, to take appropriate action against violators, and to afford remedies and reparation to victims, Reaffirming that development is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom, Whereas the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action stipulated that while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgment of internationally recognized human rights, Recognizing the widespread nature of the practice of forced evictions and that when forced evictions are carried out this can occur in a variety of contexts including but not limited to conflicts over land rights, development and infrastructure projects, such as the construction of dams or other large-scale energy projects, land acquisition measures associated with urban renewal, housing renovation, city beautification programmes, the clearing of land for agricultural purposes or macro-urban projects, unbridled speculation in land, and the holding of major international events such as the Olympic Games, Conscious that forced evictions intensify social conflict and inequality and invariably affect the poorest, most socially, economically, and vulnerable sectors of society, specifically women, children, and indigenous peoples, Conscious also of guidelines developed by international financial and other institutions on involuntary displacement and resettlement, Resolved to protect human rights and prevent violations due to the practice of forced evictions,

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

SECTION ONE: BACKGROUND ISSUES Scope and Nature of the Guidelines 1. The present Guidelines address the human rights implications of the practice of forced evictions associated with development-based displacement in urban and rural areas. The Guidelines reflect and are consistent with international human rights law and international humanitarian law and should be subject to the widest possible application. 2. Having due regard to all relevant definitions of the practice of forced evictions under international human rights provisions and instruments, the present Guidelines apply to instances of forced evictions in which there are acts and/or omissions involving the coerced and involuntary removal of individuals, groups and communities from their homes and/or lands and common property resources they occupy or are dependent upon, thus eliminating or limiting the possibility of an individual, group or community residing or working in a particular dwelling, residence or place. 3. While there are many similarities between the practice of forced evictions and internal displacement, population transfer, mass expulsions, mass exodus, ethnic cleansing and other practices involving the coerced and involuntary movement of people from their homes, lands and communities, forced evictions constitute a distinct practice under international law. Persons, groups and communities subjected to or threatened with forced evictions form, therefore, a distinct group under international human rights law. 4. Forced evictions constitute prima facie violations of a wide range of internationally recognized human rights and can only be carried out under exceptional circumstances and in full accordance with the present Guidelines and relevant provisions of international human rights law.

SECTION TWO: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS 5. While forced evictions can be carried out, sanctioned, demanded, proposed, initiated or tolerated by a variety of distinct actors, responsibility for forced evictions under international law, ultimately, is held by States. This does not, however, relieve other entities from obligations in this regard, in particular occupying powers, international financial and other institutions or organisations, transnational corporations and individual third parties, including public and private landlords or land owners. 6. States should apply appropriate civil or criminal penalties against any person or entity, within its jurisdiction, whether public or private, who carries out any forced evictions, not in full conformity with applicable law and the present Guidelines. 7. States should object, through the appropriate international legal mechanisms, to the carrying out of forced evictions in other States when such forced evictions are not in full conformity with the present Guidelines and relevant provisions of international human rights law. 8. States should ensure that international organisations in which they are represented refrain from sponsoring or implementing any project, programme or policy which may involve the carrying out of forced evictions not in full conformity with international law and the present Guidelines.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

SECTION THREE: SPECIFIC PREVENTATIVE OBLIGATIONS The Obligation of Maximum Effective Protection 9. States should secure by all appropriate means, including the provision of security of tenure, the maximum degree of effective protection against the practice of forced evictions for all persons under their jurisdiction. In this regard, special consideration should be given to the rights of indigenous peoples, children and women, particularly female-headed households and other vulnerable groups. These obligations are of an immediate nature and are not qualified by resource-related considerations. 10. States should refrain from introducing any deliberately retrogressive measures with respect to de jure or de facto protection against forced evictions. 11. States should ensure that adequate and effective legal or other appropriate remedies are available to any persons claiming that his/her right of protection against forced evictions has been violated or is under threat of violation. 12. States should ensure that eviction impact assessments are carried out prior to the initiation of any project which could result in development-based displacement, with a view to fully securing the human rights of all potentially affected persons, groups and communities. The Obligation to Prevent Homelessness 13. States should ensure that no persons, groups or communities are rendered homeless or are exposed to the violation of any other human rights as a consequence of a forced eviction. The Obligation to Adopt Appropriate Measures of Law and Policy 14. States should carry out comprehensive reviews of relevant national legislation with a view to ensuring the compatibility of such legislation with the norms contained in the present Guidelines and other relevant international human rights provisions. In this regard, special measures shall be taken to ensure that no forms of discrimination, statutory or otherwise, are applied in relation to property rights, housing rights and access to resources. 15. States should adopt appropriate legislation and policies to ensure the protection of individuals, groups and communities from forced eviction, having due regard to their best interests. States are encouraged to adopt constitutional provisions in this regard. The Obligation to Explore All Possible Alternatives 16. States should fully explore all possible alternatives to any act involving forced eviction. In this regard, all affected persons, including women, children and indigenous peoples shall have the right to all relevant information and the right to full participation and consultation throughout the entire process and to propose any alternatives. In the event that agreement cannot be reached on the proposed alternative by the affected persons, groups and communities and the entity proposing the forced eviction in question, an independent body, such as a court of law, tribunal, or ombudsman may be called upon.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

The Obligation to Expropriate Only as a Last Resort 17. States should refrain, to the maximum possible extent, from compulsorily acquiring housing or land, unless such acts are legitimate and necessary and designed to facilitate the enjoyment of human rights through, for instance, measures of land reform or redistribution. If, as a last resort, States consider themselves compelled to undertake proceedings of expropriation or compulsory acquisition, such action shall be: (a) determined and envisaged by law and norms regarding forced eviction, in so far as these are consistent internationally recognized human rights; (b) solely for the purpose of protecting the general welfare in a democratic society; (c) reasonable and proportional and (d) in accordance with the present Guidelines.

SECTION FOUR: THE RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS Integrity of the Home 18. All persons have the right to adequate housing which includes, inter alia, the integrity of the home and access to and protection of common property resources. The home and its occupants shall be protected against any acts of violence, threats of violence or other forms of harassment, in particular as they relate to women and children. The home and its occupants shall further be protected against any arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy or respect of the home. Assurances of Security of Tenure 19. All persons have a right to security of tenure which provides sufficient legal protection from forced eviction from oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home or land. 20. The present Guidelines shall apply to all persons, groups and communities irrespective of their tenure status.

SECTION FIVE: LEGAL REMEDIES 21. All persons threatened with forced eviction, notwithstanding the rationale or legal basis thereof, have the right to: (a) a fair hearing before a competent, impartial and independent court or tribunal (b) legal counsel, and where necessary, sufficient legal aid (c) effective remedies 22. States should adopt legislative measures prohibiting any forced evictions without a court order. The court shall consider all relevant circumstances of affected persons, groups and communities and any decision be in full accordance with principles of equality and justice and internationally recognized human rights. 23. All persons have a right to appeal any judicial or other decisions affecting their rights as established pursuant to the present Guidelines, to the highest national judicial authority.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

Compensation 24. All persons subjected to any forced eviction not in full accordance with the present Guidelines, should have a right to compensation for any losses of land, personal, real or other property or goods, including rights or interests in property not recognized in national legislation, incurred in connection with a forced eviction. Compensation should include land and access to common property resources and should not be restricted to cash payments. Restitution and Return 25. All persons, groups and communities subjected to forced evictions have the right to, but shall not be forced to return to their homes, lands or places of origin. Resettlements 26. In full cognizance of the contents of the present Guidelines there may be instances in which, in the public interest, or where the safety, health or enjoyment of human rights so demands, particular persons, groups and communities may be subject to resettlement. Such resettlement must occur in a just and equitable manner and in full accordance with law of general application. 27. All persons, groups and communities have the right to suitable resettlement which includes the right to alternative land or housing, which is safe, secure, accessible, affordable and habitable. 28. In determining the compatibility of resettlement with the present Guidelines, States should ensure that in the context of any case of resettlement the following criteria are adhered to: (a) No resettlement shall take place until such a time that a full resettlement policy consistent with the present Guidelines and internationally recognized human rights is in place. (b) Resettlement must ensure equal rights to women, children and indigenous populations and other vulnerable groups including the right to property ownership and access to resources. Resettlement policies should include programmes designed for women with respect to education, health, family welfare and employment opportunities. (c) The actor proposing and/or carrying out the resettlement shall be required by law to pay for any costs associated therewith, including all resettlement costs. (d) No affected persons, groups or communities, shall suffer detriment as far as their human rights are concerned nor shall their right to the continuous improvement of living conditions be subject to infringement. This applies equally to host communities at resettlement sites, and affected persons, groups and communities subjected to forced eviction. (e) That affected persons, groups and communities provide their full and informed consent as regards the relocation site. The State shall provide all necessary amenities and services and economic opportunities.

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

(f) Sufficient information shall be provided to affected persons, groups and communities concerning all State projects as well as to the planning and implementation processes relating to the resettlement concerned, including information concerning the purpose to which the eviction dwelling or site is to be put and the persons, groups or communities who will benefit from the evicted site. Particular attention must be given to ensure that indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, the landless, women and children are represented and included in this process. (g) The entire resettlement process should be carried out in full consultation and participation with the affected persons, groups and communities. States should take into account in particular all alternate plans proposed by the affected persons, groups and communities. (h) If after a full and fair public hearing, it is found that there is a need to proceed with the resettlement, then the affected persons, groups and communities shall be given at least ninety (90) days notice prior to the date of the resettlement; and (i) Local government officials and neutral observers, properly identified, shall be present during the resettlement so as to ensure that no force, violence or intimidation is involved.

SECTION SIX: MONITORING 29. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other United Nations human rights institutions should seek by all possible means to secure full compliance with the present Guidelines.

SECTION SEVEN: SAVINGS Savings Clause 30. The provisions contained within the present Guidelines are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which ensures the enjoyment of all human rights as they relate to the practice of forced evictions.

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

6 Publications available from COHRE

SOURCES SERIES COHRE, Sources No. 7: Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and IDPs: International, Regional and National Standards, (May 2001), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 6: International Events and Forced Evictions, (forthcoming 2003), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 5: Women and Housing Rights, (May 2000), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 4: Legal Provisions on Housing Rights: International and National Approaches, (2nd ed., April 2000), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 3: Forced Evictions and Human Rights: A Manual for Action, (2nd ed., October 1998), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 2: Selected Bibliography on Housing Rights and Evictions (2nd ed., April 2001), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 1: Legal Sources of the Right to Housing in International Human Rights Law (February 1992) (out of print)

GLOBAL SURVEYS ON FORCED EVICTIONS COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 9 (April 2003), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 8 (June 2002), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 7 (July 1998), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 6 (August 1994), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 5 (June 1993) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 4 (August 1992) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 3 (February 1992) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 2 (August 1991) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 1 (August 1990)

Violations of Human Rights 2001-2002

BOOKS AND OTHER REPORTS COHRE, Enforcing Housing Rights in Africa: Pursuing Housing Rights Claims Within the African System for Human Rights (forthcoming 2003), COHRE, US$ 20.00 COHRE, Enforcing Housing Rights in Europe: Pursuing Housing Rights Claims Within the European System for Human Rights (forthcoming 2003), COHRE, US$ 20.00 COHRE, Enforcing Housing Rights in the Americas: Pursuing Housing Rights Claims Within the Inter-America System for Human Rights (January 2002), COHRE, 146p, US$ 20.00 COHRE, Violence: The Impact of Forced Evictions on Women in Palestine, India and Nigeria (2001), COHRE, US$ 20.00 COHRE, The Human Right to Adequate Housing: A Chronology of United Nations Activity 1945-1999, (May 2000), US$ 15.00 Scott Leckie, When Push Comes to Shove: Forced Evictions and Human Rights (1995) Habitat International Coalition, 139p, US$ 15.00 Scott Leckie, Destruction by Design: Housing Rights Violations in Tibet (1994) COHRE, 199p, US$ 20.00

COUNTRY REPORTS COHRE, Gross Inequalities and Inconsistencies in Brazil: Status of the Human Right to Adequate Housing (March 2003), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Land, Housing and Property Rights in Zimbabwe (September 2001), US$ 10.00 COHRE and ACHR, Housing Rights Violations in Bangladesh (March 2001), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Better Late Than Never: Housing Rights in East Timor (October 2000), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Housing Rights in Latvia (January 2000), US$ 10.00 COHRE, The Status of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Solomon Islands: Moving Forward and Maintaining the Past (May 1999), US$ 10.00 COHRE, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (November 1997). COHRE, Still Waiting: Housing Rights Violations in a Land of Plenty, The Kobe Earthquake and Beyond (February 1996) (out of print)

100

Global Sur vey on Forced Evictions No. 9

FORCED EVICTIONS

CO H R E A p r i l 2 0 0 3

Violations of Human Rights

FORCED EVICTIONS

You can add to that impetus by reporting any forced evictions that take place or are planned. Please e-mail: evictions@cohre.org

Violations of Human Rights COHRE • 83 Rue de Montbrillant • 1202 Geneva • Switzerland tel: + 41.22.734.1028 • fax: + 41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org • website: www.cohre.org

COHRE April 2003