Right To Housing Analysis

As discussed in the previous section on the regional regulation on the right to housing, one can notice the development of interpretation on the right to housing which based on either international instruments or regional instruments. In addition to regional courts, many of the UN Human rights’ bodies established by human rights instruments have been dealing with the issue of housing related to specific theme of the instruments.
In the European setting, the right to housing is not directly protected under the European Convention on Human Rights nevertheless the Revised European Social Charter protects this right. However, the European Court of Justice has made an advance interpretation under article 8 of the Convention which protects the right
United Kingdom In this case, the court had related the right to adequate housing to the right to protection against inhuman and degrading treatment. The eviction experienced by Connors has led to inhuman and degrading treatments since it cause them homeless and force them to face health problems without any chance to challenge the justification of the eviction before the domestic legal system. Further, in the light of the Gypsies’ way of life, the Court emphasised that the states have positive obligations to ensure the equality of security of tenure as well as to facilitate on their nomadic style as part of cultural identity. In this regard the Court has followed the interpretation of the right to housing provided by the CESCR in General Comment No. 4. As we can observe in the Court’s decisions related to violation on the right to respect for private life, one’s home and one’s correspondence, it always related this article to the elements of right to housing or relate it to home as a place to live. These interpretations shows that the Court is in the opinion that housing as a place to stay to certain extent could be categorized as home,
Interestingly, it has followed a similar notion in interpreting the right to housing. Both of these bodies implicitly recognize this type of right in the light of protection of other types of rights such as the right to property (Article 20 of the ACHR), the right to a dignified life (article 4), and right to freedom of movement and residence (Article 22). In the case where states were sponsoring its agent to destroy houses for certain purpose, to evict people, or to massively force people to flee to face the massacre, the court states that the violation of the right to property and the right to freedom of movement and residence have been