4.1 Section 74 of the Constitution provides that: ‘No person may be evicted from their home or have their home demolished without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances.’ In the present case, a court order was obtained before the evictions and the complainants were advised of the eviction. In that light, the complainants’ freedom from arbitrary eviction was not violated. 4.2 However, it has been argued, rightly so, by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) that ‘even if a national court has ruled in favour of an eviction or if the eviction is carried out in conformity with national legislation, the situation may still constitute a forced eviction if it does not comply with international human rights standards and Staterelated obligations.’1 This argument is in line with the definition of forced eviction as given by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 7 (1997) on the right to adequate housing: forced evictions: 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”. 4.3 The African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, which Zimbabwe ratified, in article 3(1) (a) states parties to “refrain from, prohibit and prevent arbitrary displacement of populations.” The principles of human rights are clear that before displacement of people, there is need to have established alternative accommodation for them. In this case, no alternative accommodation was established prior to the eviction order, thus violating the basic principles of human rights on displacements. 1 OHCHR. Forced evictions. Fact Sheet No. 25. Available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS25.Rev.1.pdf, (accessed on 30 July 2017). Page 5 of 8