Zimbabwe: No justice for the victims of forced evictions 23 Furthermore, as this report illustrates, not only do the Operation Garikai/Hlalani Kuhle houses and stands fail to meet standards of adequacy, but the whole scope of the operation and, in particular, the failure of Operation Garikai/Hlalani Kuhle to prioritise those most in need, clearly point to the government’s failure to take concrete steps to ensure the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing as required under international human rights law. Article 11.1 of the ICESCR states: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right …" The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment No. 3 concerning the nature of States parties’ obligations under the ICESCR, points out that “… while the full realisation of the relevant rights may be achieved progressively, steps towards that goal must be taken within a reasonably short time after the Covenant's entry into force for the States concerned. Such steps should be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting the obligations recognised in the Covenant.” 64 Some important domestic decisions have also been made in Africa clarifying the obligations of state authorities to progressively implement the right to adequate housing. The South African Constitutional Court has made a number of important decisions on obligations under the South African Constitution with particular reference to those subjected to evictions and in need of urgent relief. The Constitutional Court has ruled that the right to adequate housing requires state authorities to “devise and implement within its available resources a comprehensive and coordinated programme progressively to realise the right of access to adequate housing”. Such programme must include “reasonable measures to provide relief for people who have no access to land, no roof over their heads, and who are living in intolerable conditions or crisis situations.” 65 The Constitutional Court has developed this position subsequently, stating that “the progressive realization of access to adequate housing […] requires careful planning and fair procedures made known in advance to those most affected” and declaring that “residents [who have been subjected to an eviction order] are entitled to occupy the land until alternative land has been made available to them by the state”.66 While these decisions do not directly apply to Zimbabwe, they provide important, relevant precedent in Africa. Furthermore the main underlying principles contained in these decisions reflect the provisions of the ICESCR and the jurisprudence of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Amnesty International has found nothing in the way Operation Garikai/Hlalani Kuhle has been devised and implemented to suggest a reasonable plan to address the right to evictions. Also CESCR, in General Comment No.7, requires states to “…see to it that all the individuals concerned have a right to adequate compensation for any property, both personal and real, which is affected.” (Para 13). 64 See CESCR, General Comment No.3. 65 See paragraph 99 of Government of the RSA&Ors. V. Grootboom&Ors., 4 October 2000. 66 See respectively paragraph 49 and 68(c) of President of the Republic of South Africa and ANor. V. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, 13 May 2005. Amnesty International 8 September 2006 AI Index: AFR 46/005/2006