5. Whether or not the right to adequate shelter was violated 5.1 Section 28 of the Constitution states that: “The State and all institutions and agencies of government at every level must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within the limits of the resources available to them, to enable every person to have access to adequate shelter.” This implies taking measures to provide alternative shelter to evictees. Failure to take such measures constitutes a violation of the right to adequate shelter. 5.2 Removing people, forcibly or not, from places they call homes is an apparent interruption in the flow of their day-to-day livelihoods activities like farming. It is also taking them from their shelter. In the case under consideration, the complainants face eviction which will inevitably disrupt their livelihoods and also leave them homeless. This is therefore a violation of their right to adequate shelter. 6. Whether or not the right to administrative justice was violated Administrative justice in terms of Section 68 of the Constitution requires that any administrative action be fair, reasonable and procedurally fair. Procedural fairness includes, in this present case, giving complainants adequate notice before demolitions. From the investigations conducted, the ZHRC established that the complainants were indeed given adequate notice prior to the demolitions of their homes but no suitable and alternative shelter and land was provided so the right to administrative justice was violated. 7. Whether or not the right to dignity was violated Section 51 of the Constitution provides that: ‘Every person has inherent dignity in their private and public life and the right to have the dignity respected and protected.’ The prospects of being evicted; or being evicted and thrown into the open exposes the complainants to indignity of being at the mercy of the dangerous agents of the weather Homelessness is one of the highest forms of indignity. Page 7 of 8