and/or by the local authority.118 It may well be that many of the evictees do not have leases, or have breached them; it remains essential that they be given the opportunity to raise such defences. The mission was able to ascertain that in some cases the vendors, whose stalls and marketplaces were destroyed and whose goods were confiscated, held valid vendors’ licenses. It would therefore appear that the actions against them were not in accordance with the planning regulations119. The mission obtained information that some properties, which had been constructed in compliance with relevant laws, were also destroyed.120 Some affected people have filed applications in the Courts to prevent demolition and eviction. In some instances, provisional orders to interdict the police and relevant authorities from carrying out their actions and to restore possession to those who had been in possession of the same have not been heeded, while in other cases they have been.121 Notably, the High Court issued a provisional order on 29 June 2005 banning the government from allocating stands and constructing sample houses on property known as Whitecliff Farm, which is owned by a private individual.122 This site has been earmarked by Government to provide housing and livelihoods as part of Operation Garikai (Reconstruction /Resettlement) to provide stands/plots and vendor stalls in response to the consequences of Operation Restore Order. The Special Envoy had witnessed the launch of the reconstruction phase by the First Vice President on this very site. The sustainability of this intervention in terms of security of tenure can be seriously questioned as the very land allocated for reconstruction and resettlement soon became the subject of an unresolved legal challenge. The Special Envoy brought this serious development for Operation Garikai to the attention of the Minister of Local Government. He clarified, albeit verbally, that the new urban land acquisition law provides a landowner whose land has been earmarked for acquisition no option but to surrender the land while negotiations for compensation are ongoing. The Government further insisted that the courts had no basis to interdict its new plans, but this remains unclear. 6.4 When can Governments/State Parties be justified in law? Under both relevant international law and national legislation forced evictions can be justified under certain circumstances. The Committee of Economic Social and Cultural General Comment 4, paragraph 18, states that instances of forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant and can only be justified under the most exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances include persistent anti-social behaviour which threatens, harasses or intimidates neighbours; persistent behaviour which threatens public health or is manifestly criminal behaviour as defined by law, which threatens others; and illegal occupation of property without compensation. 118 Tinashe Tafira & 6 others vs Harare City Council & 2 Ors Harare Magistrate Court Case No. 16596/05. See submissions from Law Society of Zimbabwe, Action Aid, and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights. June/July 2005 119 See submission presented by the City of Bulawayo on the Clean-Up Operation, 6 July 2005. 120 See the case of Batsirai Children’s Care vs The Minister of Local Government, Public Works & Urban Development & 4 Ors HC 2566/05, in the submissions of Action Aid 8 July 2005 121 Dare Remusha Co-operative vs. Ministry of Local Government and Public Works & Urban Development & 4 Ors HC 2467/05 122 Submission of Law Society of Zimbabwe 59