152 | Zimbabwe Rule of Law Journal “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.”30 It is clear that no issue of progressive realisation arises despite the right to adequate living standards being a socio-economic right. This is due to the wording of General Comment 7 which suggests that the State should refrain from carrying out forced or arbitrary evictions. In this regard the state has a negative duty to ensure that there are no forced or arbitrary evictions.31 This position is also supported by Article 17 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and complements the right not to be forcefully or arbitrarily evicted. Article 17 (1) of ICCPR provides as follows; “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation .2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” In M v Germany, the Human Rights Committee held that the right enshrined in terms of Article 17 of the Covenant, that an interference is only legally justifiable where it cumulatively meets three conditions, that is, “it must be provided for by law, be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant, and be reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case.”32 In our particular context, it is clear that the demolitions are not being done in terms of any law but are actually being done in clear contravention of ss 68 and 74 of the Constitution. Invariably therefore, the demolitions are not being done within the objects, letter, purpose and spirit of the ICCPR. In this respect therefore, it is submitted that the house demolitions amount to breaches of rights guaranteed See ECOSOC General Comment No 7 para 9 Note that the State’s obligation to ensure respect for that right is not qualified by considerations relating to its available resources. ECOSOC General Comment 7, para 9 32 M v Germany, Human Rights Committee, Communication No.1482/2006. See also Communication No. 903/1999, Van Hulst v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, at para 7.3, para 9 30 31