in our previous report. Essentially, although the judge says that the forced displacements caused untold suffering, and that the hardships could have been avoided by giving the people affected adequate notice to relocate, remarkably he found that the evictions were lawful. This was despite the fact that the evictions had taken place well before the notice period actually given to the people had expired! Although, in the Porta Farm case, the evictions had taken place in defiance of court orders, the High Court again failed the litigants by failing to hold the police and others involved in contempt. In a Bulawayo case, a judge due to hear a legal challenge to the evictions ducked the case, saying he was unable to hear it due to pressure of other work. Such cases lead to a lack of confidence that the court will dispense justice. They are also symptomatic of a breakdown of the rule of law in Zimbabwe. The UN Special Envoy comments on this matter in these terms at p 62: “There is general concern that the High Court‘s failure to safeguard the right of the victims of the Operation reaffirms the argument that the Zimbabwean Judiciary has generally failed to act and been seen to act as custodians of human rights in Zimbabwe and that there has been a regrettable failure by members of the Bench to remain independent from the national and local politics of the day. The general view among many stakeholders is that this has had a severe impact on the rule of law and the administration of justice, and has caused the ordinary person on the street to lose faith in achieving justice through legal channels.‖ By contrast with the Zimbabwe courts, the South African courts have taken a position under the South African Constitution that protects the poor against arbitrary eviction. In a recent case, the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled against the Port Elizabeth Municipality evicting 68 families who were squatting on private land . In a unanimous judgment, Justice Sachs emphasised the importance of interpreting and applying the above provisions in the light of historically created landlessness in South Africa. He stressed the need for dealing with homelessness in a sensitive and orderly manner, and the special role of the courts in managing complex and socially stressful situations. Municipalities must show equal accountability to occupiers and land owners. Ordinarily, justice and equity would require that all reasonable steps be taken to procure a mediated solution before an eviction order is made. 27 As Justice Sachs commented: “It is not only the dignity of the poor that is assailed when homeless people are driven from pillar to post in a desperate quest for a place where they and their families can rest their heads. Our society as a whole is demeaned when state action intensifies rather than mitigates their marginalization. The integrity of the rights based vision of the Constitution is punctured when governmental action augments rather than reduces denial of the claims of the desperately poor to the basic elements of a decent existence. Hence the need for special judicial control of a process that is both socially stressful and potentially conflictual‖ . 28 Here, it is also relevant to point out the recommendations of the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Covenant of the UN . 29 The Committee points out that, even when evictions are unavoidable, there should be certain procedural guarantees, as follows: