Housing and ESC Rights Law
Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
1
Vol. 6 - No. 3 September 2009
Q ua r t erly
With the Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly, the COHRE ESC Rights Litigation Programme aims to present advocates and other interested persons with information on national and international legal developments related to housing and economic, social and cultural rights.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE JOE SLOVO COMMUNITY EVICTIONS CASE1 by Sonkita Conteh2 and Bret Thiele3 This case dealt with the eviction of the Joe Slovo informal settlement to make way for the construction of affordable, adequate housing for the poorer segments of South African society. Five separate judgments were delivered in this matter on 10 June 2009. Each of the judgments found that by the
time eviction proceedings were commenced in the High Court, the residents of Joe Slovo informal settlement were ‘unlawful occupiers’ within the meaning of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 1998 (PIE Act). There were, however, differences
in opinion as to whether the applicants had the consent of the City to occupy the land. Four justices4 concluded that the residents had the tacit consent of the City which was subsequently revoked, but one5 concluded that there was no consent at all.
Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v. Thubelisha Homes & Others, CCT 22/08[2009] ZACC 16.
1
Legal Officer, COHRE.
2
3
Coordinator, Litigation Programme, COHRE.
4
Moseneke DCJ, Ngcobo J, O’Regan J and Sachs J.
5
Yacoob J.
1
2
• CASE NOTE Flor Enid Jiménez de Correa v. Medellín Public Companies (Empresas Públicas de Medellín), Constitutional Court, 17 April 2007, Decision No. T-270/07, File n. T-1426818
• Analysis of the Judgment of the • Summary Constitutional Court of South Africa in the Joe Slovo Community Evictions Case
6
5
7
8
• CASES TO WATCH - Federal Supreme • European Committee of Social Rights, Centre • CASE NOTE on Housing Rights and Evictons (COHRE) v. Court of Brazil, Popular Action n. European Committee of Social Croatia, Complaint No. 52/2008 3388/2005, Senator Augusto Affonso Rights, European Roma Rights Botelho Neto and Senator Francisco • European Committee of Social Rights, Centre Centre v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy, Mozarildo de Melo Cavalcant v. Union 48/2008 (18 February 2009) Complaint No. 58/2009 • Constitutional Court of South Africa: Mazibuko & Ors v. City of Johannesburg & Ors: Phiri Right to Water Case
1
Summary This edition of the Quarterly opens with an article on the case of Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v. Thubelisha Homes & Others, a recent decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa dealing with the threatened eviction of the Joe Slovo settlement. While the decision resulted in some beneficial jurisprudence, the eviction order was affirmed. Following are several Case Notes, including a case of the Constitutional Court of Colombia reading the right to water from the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights into the constitutional jurisprudence of Colombia, and a case from the European Committee of Social Rights dealing with retrogressive measures in the area of social assistance benefits that had a disproportionate impact on the Roma population of Bulgaria Cases to watch include a summary of the Raposa Serra do Sol case, dealing with indigenous land rights and on appeal before the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, and two cases before the European Committee of Social Rights, dealing with discrimination against Croats of Serbian descent in Croatia and Roma and Sinti in Italy, respectively. Finally, there is a brief update on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We are thankful to the Housing Rights Programme, a joint initiative of UN‑HABITAT and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for providing the funding necessary to make the Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly a regular publication and to ensure its widest possible distribution. For additional information on the justiciability of ESC rights, see www. cohre.org/litigation and the Case Law Database at www.escr-net.org. We welcome any comments, submissions of case notes and articles, as well as information on new cases and relevant events and publications. Please feel free to contact us at: quarterly@cohre.org
>> The judgments also found that it will be just and equitable to evict the residents and relocate them to temporary residential units as long as they are deemed adequate, including by having galvanised iron roofs, are serviced with paved roads, supplied with electricity, reasonably situated to communal ablution facilities and make reasonable provision for fresh water and toilet facilities with water-borne sewerage. The judgments further found that the Government acted reasonably in seeking the eviction of the applicants as they were seeking to promote the right of access to adequate housing as guaranteed in the Constitution and that the residents have a legitimate expectation that 70 per cent of the new homes to be built on the Joe Slovo site will be allocated to current residents or those who moved after the housing project started.
ISSUES BEFOR THE COURT The application by the residents of Joe Slovo informal settlement argued that the residents are not ‘unlawful occupiers’ of the site in question within the meaning of the PIE Act and hence could not be the subject of an eviction order under that Act. The residents contended alternatively that if they are deemed to be ‘unlawful occupiers’ within the meaning of the PIE Act, then it is not just and equitable that they should be evicted. In addition they argued that residents of Joe Slovo have a legitimate expectation that 70 per cent of the permanent housing to be built on the Joe Slovo site will be allocated to them. The Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and the Community Law Centre of the University of Western Cape submitted an amicus brief primarily
22
Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly
based on international law which argued that the residents ought not to be evicted because, among other things, there has not been any meaningful engagement, hence it would not be just and equitable to evict the residents of Joe Slovo.6 The Court found the amici submission to be extensive and very useful.
KEY ASPECTS OF THE COURT’S DECISION Occupation of public lands by landless people The judgments noted that the lawfulness of the occupation of public lands by landless people such as the residents of Joe Slovo informal settlement must be determined from the perspective of South Africa’s constitutional and statutory background (with its fundamental value of human dignity) and not according to the precepts of private law. The government’s constitutional duty towards landless people requires it to allow the residents of Joe Slovo to remain on public land until it can develop and implement a policy that addresses their plight as well as the plight of all living in desperate situations. Under the circumstances, such people cannot be deemed to have occupied public lands unlawfully. The Court clearly pointed out that the dimensions to the relationship between a public authority (as opposed to a private land owner) and homeless people on its land may be so diffused that reliance on common law principles alone might be inadequate to unravel them. The judgment noted further that the term ‘unlawful occupier’ has a ‘deeply painful and pejorative connotation’ and is inimical to values of human dignity.
The amicus brief and the judgment are available at http://web.wits.ac.za/Academic/Centres/CALS/ HousingAndEvictions/Litigation.htm
6
Legitimate expectation of evicted community for better housing The judgment recognised that courts must remain vigilant to ensure that when governments seek to evict a community, such as Joe Slovo, in pursuit of laudable housing plans, the plans must include the guarantee that those who are evicted and relocated have a reasonable opportunity of accessing adequate housing within a reasonable time in relation to the housing project concerned. To this end the court ordered that 70 per cent of the low-cost housing to be built on the Joe Slovo site should be allocated to the community.
Meaningful engagement with persons to be evicted The court noted the importance of meaningful engagement between the government and persons to be evicted. The requirement for engagement it said flows from the need to treat residents with respect and care for their dignity. Where the government seeks to relocate people living in deplorable conditions in line with a programme to provide them with decent housing, there is a duty to engage meaningfully with residents both individually and collectively. Individual engagement enables the government to understand the needs and concerns of individual households so that where possible it can take steps to meet their concern. The goal of meaningful engagement is to find mutually acceptable solutions to the difficult issues confronting the government and residents in the quest to provide adequate housing. The court found that government’s engagement with the Joe Slovo community in the process leading up to eviction proceedings was inadequate and required ‘meaningful engagement’ of the parties in good faith to work out the details of the evictions process.
Adequate alternative accommodation The court noted that an eviction order that does not make provision for adequate alternative accommodation but simply orders an eviction is less likely to be just and equitable than one which makes careful provision for alternative accommodation. The alternative accommodation must be equipped with basic services, including paved roads, electricity, fresh water and reasonable provision of toilet facilities. In addition, the government must, as far as possible, have regard to the proximity of schools, employment opportunities and other public amenities to the alternative accommodation. The Court outlined in some detail the quality of the alternative accommodation to be provided to the community by the authorities.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FORCED EVICTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA AND INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Although upholding the eviction order, this decision marks a further development in the housing rights jurisprudence of South Africa. It demonstrates a keen awareness of the lived realities of poor communities and a proper understanding of government’s constitutional obligation to provide better housing for particularly poor and marginalised occupants of informal settlements. It discards a formulaic and coldly legalistic approach in favour of a more sensitive people-oriented approach to a problem shaped by history. The judgment provides a fresh and desirable perspective to the relationship between landless persons and public authorities in relation to the occupation of public lands. It forcefully brings to the
H o u s i n g and E S C R i g hts L aw Q uarterly
3
fore the humanity of those living in informal settlements and compels public authorities to recognise this and treat them appropriately. The judgment dispels the notion of informal settlement dwellers as problematic, anonymous social misfits and ensures that they will no longer be treated shabbily by public authorities. By insisting on meaningful engagement, the judgment seeks to strip ‘forceful eviction’ of its inherent violence and indignity. Meaningful engagement discards a top-down approach, which invariably results in bulldozers and armed police on the one hand and bloodied civilians and damaged properties on the other, in favour of a participatory process that allows those to be evicted to be involved in the process from conception to implementation. The end product of this type of engagement is usually ‘a relocation’ rather than ‘an eviction’. In referring to General Comment No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the judgment gives weight
4
to international standards on forced evictions. By holding that General Comment No. 7 provides a useful guide to determining the obligations of government when seeking to relocate people and that in terms of its requirement for genuine consultation it is consistent with South African jurisprudence and thus must be followed. As such, the judgment gives explicit recognition of the relevant provisions of the General Comment as well as increased status. The judgment has much appeal for housing rights advocates in Africa and beyond as it clearly stipulates that public authorities are obliged to provide adequate alternative accommodation for evicted persons. Many governments in Africa and elsewhere are guilty of carrying out evictions, sometimes large scale, of poor people without providing even the barest minimum of alternative accommodation all in the name of beautifying or modernising their cities. The judgment is a veritable tool for housing rights advocacy as it embodies a checklist of the ‘dos and don’ts’ in eviction processes for public authorities. Responsible and
H o u s i n g and E S C R i g hts L aw Q uarterly
accountable governments ought to take notice of this judgment and think seriously before embarking on any forced eviction of their rights-holding residents.
POSTSCRIPT On 24 August, the Constitutional Court suspended its order upholding the eviction of the residents of the Joe Slovo settlement. The recent order effectively suspends any eviction “until further notice.” This order occurred after the Western Cape Member of the Executive Council for housing presented a report to the Constitutional Court which laid out “grave concerns” that the “massive relocation” might cost more than it would to upgrade the Joe Slovo settlement. The report also pointed out that the Court failed to deal with those relocated to Delft that could not return to Joe Slovo on account of there not being sufficient housing units built under the upgrading plan. This turn of events provides more time for the residents of Joe Slovo to present and advocate for their own plan to upgrade their community.
CASE NOTE Flor Enid Jiménez de Correa v. Medellín Public Companies (Empresas Públicas de Medellín), Constitutional Court, 17 April 2007, Decision No. T-270/07, File n. T-14268187 This case resulted in the affirmation in the domestic courts of Colombia that the right to water as implicitly guaranteed by Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as informed by General Comment No. 15 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, is part of the Colombian Constitutional framework. The decision specified that the right to water requires a continuous water supply for treatment of serious disease as well as prohibition of disconnection of water supply services. The applicant, Flor Enid Jiménez de Correa, was at the time a 56 year old woman who was suffering from a serious illness. On the basis of an unpaid debt to Empresas Públicas de Medellín, provider of the public services of water and electricity, the company disconnected the applicant from the water supply service. The applicant claimed that this put her life and health at risk, since she depended upon water supply services to receive medical treatment at home, and that she was unable to pay for the service. The Medellin Court found that the disconnection was unlawful and ordered the company to immediately reconnect the applicant to the water supply service. The defendant brought the case to the Supreme Court, pleading that water services could not be provided for free, because this would put at risk the financial sustainability of the system, and
also that the applicant could apply to a relief plan offered by the general management of Medellin Public Companies. The Court based its reasoning on Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, following the interpretation provided in General Comment No. 15. The Court clarified that international law, including General Comments of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, was part of the Colombian Constitutional framework, and therefore it should be applied directly. In this regard, the Court explicitly stated: i) the rights and duties consecrated in the constitution are interpreted according to international human rights treaties ratified by Colombia; ii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights belongs to the constitutional framework of Colombia, extending the protection of fundamental rights; iii) the observations by the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights have a complementary function of interpretation of the normative framework of fundamental rights;
iv) States parties to the Covenant have a special obligation to provide those who do not have sufficient means with the necessary water and water facilities and to prevent any discrimination on internationally prohibited grounds in the provision of water and water services, and that in paragraph 27, the Committee provided that in order to ensure that water is affordable, States parties must adopt the necessary measures that may include, inter alia, appropriate pricing policies such as free or low-cost water; The Court then went on to analyze the right to water from the viewpoint of the constitutional rights to a life in dignity and to health. Finally, the Constitutional Court confirmed the previous decisions by the lower court ordering the Public Company Empresas Públicas de Medellín to continuously provide the applicant with safe water, despite her inability to afford the cost of the service and because of her special very vulnerable health condition. Note that the Colombian Supreme Court has consistently held that access to water for personal uses constitutes a fundamental right based, inter alia, on the constitutional rights to life, health and a healthy environment.
Full decision in Spanish available at: http://basedoc. superservicios.gov.co/basedoc/corte_constitucional. shtml?x=64842.
7
Case Note by Bret Thiele
Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly
55
CASES TO WATCH Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, Popular Action n. 3388/2005, Senator Augusto Affonso Botelho Neto and Senator Francisco Mozarildo de Melo Cavalcant v. Union This case, known colloquially as the Raposa Serra do Sol case, deals with indigenous land rights in Brazil, and will likely be a landmark decision. The demarcation of the indigenous reservation Raposa Serra do Sol, in the State of Roraima, Brazil, is currently under the consideration of the Federal Supreme Court (STF). It has almost reached a final judicial decision, after 11 years of being a matter of high controversy among the judiciary and civil society. The indigenous territory of Raposa Serra do Sol is located in the northeast area of the State of Roraima, bordering Guiana and Venezuela.8 The area of 1.7 million hectares, where 18 thousand indigenous persons reside, had been demarcated by a Presidential Decree issued in 2005. The area of the reservation represents 7.8 per cent of the total area of the State of Roraima. The indigenous population living in tribal communities conform 49,2 per cent of the total rural population of the State and 46.01 per cent of the area of the State is considered indigenous territory. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Demographic Census 2000), the National Foundation of Indigenous Peoples (FUNAI) and the SocioEnvironment Institute (ISA), it is estimated that there are 750,000 indigenous people in Brazil, constituted of 225 distinct peoples who speak approximately 180 languages and live in 611 indigenous territories, out of which only 398 were demarcated. Nearly 60% of these indigenous people live in the central-western and northern regions of the country. The other 40% are confined into small tracts of lands, located in the northeast, southeast and south regions.
8
In 1998, the indigenous people were granted permanent possession over such territory and have been relying on the work of the National Indigenous Foundation (FUNAI) and the National Institute of Agrarian Reform to demarcate the area and issue land title (Administrative Ruling n. 820/98). The reservation is home for the indigenous communities Ingarikó, Makuxi, Taurepang, Wapixana and Patamona. Six private landowners, who have illegally encroached on indigenous lands and organised their own militias to protect such areas, have refused to leave the territory when it became entirely assigned to the indigenous communities. The largest rice producer and main opponent to the demarcation of the indigenous territory, Paulo Cesar Quartiero, is the owner of the farm Guanabara, embedded in the Raposa Serra do Sol lands. He is also the Mayor of the municipality of Pacairama, located within the indigenous reservation of Sao Marcos, located closely to Raposa Serra do Sol. The Presidential Decree No. 534/2005 has recognised the rights of the indigenous peoples over the contiguous indigenous territory named Raposa Serra do Sol, including the area of the municipalities of Normandia and Uiramutã. It determined the land to be vacated within the period of one year. An office of the Federal Police was established in the area to implement the Decree. However, the private
landowners who cultivate rice on 14 thousand hectares of land located within the indigenous reservation have refused to leave. They rely on political support from the Government of the State of Roraima and from local politicians. Since 1999, the State Government and the private owners have been contesting the demarcation procedure before the judiciary, and since then the Office of the Federal Public Prosecutor has required the STF to consider and judge any suit filled by the landowners. They contested the delimitation of Raposa Serra do Sol as an integral and continuous indigenous territory and defended the non contiguous demarcation. In 2004, 2005 and 2006 a series of attacks were carried out by the rice farmers against indigenous villages, resulting in injuries and deaths9. Thirty-four houses were burnt down in the attacks. It is hoped the final decision will result in implementing the Presidential Decree and bring this important case to a close. 9
Case to watch by Leticia Osorio, Senior Legal Officer, COHRE Litigation Programme 66
H o u s i n g and E S C R i g hts L aw Q uarterly
The lack of conflict resolution has been affecting indigenous peoples in Brazil disproportionately. According to the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI – Report on Violence 2006-07) “the number of indigenous territories officially demarcated has decreased from 13 territories per year, in the period before 2003, to six (06) territories per year, between 2003 and 2005. It has been found that during the period of least land demarcations, the average annual homicide rate increased from twenty (20) to forty (40). An analysis of this data reveals that there is an inversely proportional relation between demarcation of territories and violence against these peoples”.
European Committee of Social Rights, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictons (COHRE) v. Croatia, Complaint No. 52/2008 This case deals with the right to return and the right to a remedy, including restitution of housing. It alleges a violation of Article 16 of the Charter (the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection), read alone or in conjunction with Article E (non discrimination) of the Charter, on the grounds that the
ethnic Serb population displaced during the 1990s war in Croatia has been subjected to discriminatory treatment as the families of Serbian descent have not been allowed to reoccupy their former homes in which they enjoyed occupancy rights prior to the conflict, nor have they been granted financial
compensation for the loss of their homes. The case is currently being decided on the merits. For more information see: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/ m o n i t o r i n g /s o c i a l c h a r t e r/ Complaints/Complaints_en.asp
Case to watch by Bret Thiele
European Committee of Social Rights, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy, Complaint No. 58/2009 Recently filed before the European Committee of Social Rights, this case challenges several recent laws, policies and practices that discriminate against the Roma and Sinti populations of Italy. In particular, the complaint challenges recent so-called emergency security measures and racist and xenophobic discourse which have resulted in unlawful
campaigns and evictions leading to homelessness and expulsions disproportionately targeting Roma and Sinti. The complaint alleges violations of Articles16 (the right of the family to social, legal and economic protection), 19 (right of migrant workers and their families to protection and assistance), 30 (right to protection against poverty and social exclusion) and
31 (right to housing), read alone or in conjunction with Article E (non-discrimination) of the Revised Charter. The case is currently being decided on admissibility. For more information see: http:// www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ s o c i a l c h a r t e r/Co m p l a i n t s / Complaints_en.asp
Case to watch by Bret Thiele
Constitutional Court of South Africa: Mazibuko & Ors v. City of Johannesburg & Ors: Phiri Right to Water Case In the landmark case of Lindiwe Maxibuko & Ors v. The City of Johannesburg & Ors, the High Court of South Africa ruled that the City of Johannesburg’s prepayment water metres scheme in Phiri, a township in Soweto, was unconstitutional. This judgment also reaffirmed the principle of progressive realisation and increased the minimal amount of safe drinking water that the City is obligated to provide to 50 litres per person per day. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), however, the lower court judgment was rescinded. The SCA did, however, rely on international human rights law in reaffirming that the amount of drinking water
for domestic use was the amount necessary to live a life with dignity. The SCA used factual information provided by the City to determine that that minimum amount was 42 litres per person per day, however. The SCA failed to take fully into account the principle of progressive realization and failed to consider that the situation in Phiri was the result of apartheid and thus is required to be remedied under South Africa’s obligations as a State Party to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In July 2009, the Constitutional Court of South Africa will hear oral
arguments in the cross appeal of this groundbreaking case. One of the more specific issues to be addressed is whether or not the factual basis for the determination of the minimum amount of water was properly applied. Other issues will include the obligations of progressive realisation and how the obligation to eradicate the effects of apartheid should inform the ultimate remedy in the case. The Court is expected to issue its ruling later in 2009. For more information, including the judgment, see: http://www.cohre. org/watersa
Case to watch by Bret Thiele Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly
77
CASE NOTE
The Editorial Board of the Housing an ESC Rights Law Quarterly is:
European Committee of Social Rights,
• Salih Booker, Executive Director, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Switzerland;
European Roma Rights Centre v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 48/2008 (18 February 2009)
• Lilian Chenwi, Coordinator and Senior Researcher, Community Law Centre, South Africa;
This case involves amendments to the Social Assistance Act which lowered the maximum time periods for which most unemployed persons can obtain social assistance. The time lines were lowered to an initial 18 months, then 12 and ultimately six months. Prior to the amendments, there was no time limit as long as the unemployed person met specific needs criteria. The changes had a disproportionate impact on Roma, who are substantially overrepresented among the beneficiaries of social assistance. The European Committee of Social Rights (Committee) unanimously found a violation of Article 13§1 of the Revised European Social Charter (guaranteeing the right to social and medical assistance). In doing so, the Committee emphasised the fundamental right of individuals to be able to access sufficient resources and social assistance in order to live in a manner compatible with human dignity. The Committee also noted that implementation of Article 13§1 also was essential to any strategy to combat social exclusion in a substantive and meaningful manner. In this context, the Committee recalled its jurisprudence that there could be some conditionality to receiving social assistance, such as willingness to look for employment or undergo vocational training. The Committee, however, held that access cannot be
made subject to time limits if the persons affected continue to meet the basic needs criteria outlined in Article 13§1 (that the person is without adequate resources and is unable to secure such resources either by their own efforts or from other sources). Consequently, the Committee found a breach of Article 13§1 of the Revised Charter. The European Roma Rights Centre also alleged a violation of the nondiscrimination clause of Article E read in conjunction with Article 13§1 because of the disproportionate impact on the Roma population. Here, the Committee considered that the legislative reforms likely pose a considerable impact upon some of the most disadvantaged groups in Bulgaria including, in particular, upon the Roma. The Committee also considered that a denial of Article 13§1 will inevitably constitute a denial of the fundamental right of persons belonging to socially disadvantaged groups to equality of respect and esteem. The Committee, however, felt that the allegations of a breach of Article E can be regarded as subsumed within the wider question of whether Article 13§1 has been breached, and therefore the Committee, an a vote of 8 to 6, did not deem it necessary to examine the allegations of breach of Article E of the Revised Charter read in conjunction with Article 13§1.
Case Note by Bret Thiele with excerpts from the merits decision of the case 88
Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly
• Colin Gonsalves, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Network, India; • Aoife Nolan, Assistant Director, Human Rights Centre, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland. • Bruce Porter, Executive Director, Social Rights Advocacy Centre, Canada; • Julieta Rossi, Director, ESCR-Net, USA; • Bret Thiele, Coordinator, COHRE ESC Rights Litigation Programme, Switzerland. Coordinating Editor: • Bret Thiele, Coordinator, COHRE ESC Rights Litigation Programme, Switzerland. CONTACT If you have any comments, require additional copies, wish to contribute to or wish to subscribe to the mailing list for the Housing and ESC Rights Law Quarterly, please contact: quarterly@cohre.org For general information on the COHRE ESC Rights Litigation Programme, please contact: litigation@cohre.org
Centre on Housing Rights & Evictions (COHRE) COHRE ESC Rights Litigation Programme Rue de Montbrillant 83 1202 Geneva Switzerland tel.: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e‑mail: cohre@cohre.org web: http://www.cohre.org