南非67000被迫遷戶勝訴！

北縣府在去年九月派出大批警察以暴力幫工程單位進駐開挖樂生院之後，周縣長又多次急著展現公權力「依法行政」的勢力，派出警察與怪手聯手鏟除北縣境內弱勢的、邊緣的都市原住民部落，鐵晼手段，溪洲、三鶯部落成為接下來的目標。

看到報紙媒體披露，北縣以位於「行水區安全」類似健康和安全的理由，逼遷大部份住民到只能住2年的臨時性公寓，並分別住戶1/3以不符資格為由完全不安置。

一些記者發現水利法的行水區定義模糊，台北縣府的說法與作法有明顯瑕疵。卻已經造成好幾個家庭老少許多人無家可歸，如此經營多年的部落，以及她們的文化三兩下子就完全被催毀。而部落旁邊行水區上卻砂石場林立，對於行水區生態持續破壞。

類似這樣迫遷低收入戶、少數族群的案例，今年二月出現逆轉形式，世界人權宣言第25條可知，就被迫遷離的規定，在迫遷形成之時不是唯一的條件，同時結論也確立國家義務的性質。國家本身必須避免採取強行驅逐，反對其代理人或第三者的人進行強行驅逐，它也宣布驅逐決不能導致當事人無家可歸。

筆者看到曾經關切樂生院的國際反迫遷組織COHRE最近一則在南非憲法法院判定〈約翰內斯堡67000低收入被迫遷居民勝利〉的新聞，翻譯給讀者看看，希望政客別以為可以為所欲為無法無天。

JUDGMENT IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA A VICTORY FOR 67,000 LOW INCOME RESIDENTS OF JOHANNESBURG南19 February 2008

新聞出處：http://www.cohre.org/view_page.php?page_id=228 南非憲法法院判定，約翰內斯堡67000低收入被迫遷居民勝利!

The Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) and the Cape Town-based Community Law Centre (CLC) at the University of the Western Cape welcomed the judgment that was handed down in the Constitutional Court today in the case of Various Occupiers v City of Johannesburg and others, in which COHRE and the CLC intervened as joint amicicuriae.

總部設在日內瓦的全球居住及反迫遷組織COHRE（居住權中心）和開普敦為本的社會法律中心（CLC），在西開普大學歡慶今天在南非憲法法院勝訴案，在案件中COHRE和CLC對於約翰內斯堡V城和其他地區不同的佔領戶協助訴訟，成為聯合法庭之友。

The Constitutional Court overturned the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, noting that the SCA “should not have granted the order of ejectment ... in the absence of meaningful engagement.” As part of an Inner City Regeneration Strategy, the City of Johannesburg has attempted to evict residents of so-called “bad buildings” in terms of the National Building Regulations and Standards Act (NBRA). The City used this apartheid-era legislation to evict residents on grounds of health and safety concerns without consulting residents and without considering all relevant circumstances – such as the probability that residents would be made homeless.

憲法法院推翻了最高法院的上訴作出裁決後指出，政制事務局局長「在缺乏深思熟濾之下不應給予該命令」，這只是一部份黨內城市更新策略，卻企圖趕走約翰內斯堡城內居民，驅逐到所謂的「壞大廈」而不是符合國家建設的標準法法規Act (NBRA)。全市利用這個種族隔離時期的立法以趕走居民，理由是健康和安全的關注，在沒有諮詢居民和沒有考慮所有相關的情況下-這很可能導致居民將無家可歸。

Jean du Plessis, Deputy Director of COHRE, said: “Today’s judgment is a landmark victory for the more than 67,000 low-income residents of Johannesburg who risk overcrowded living conditions with poor sanitation and the constant threat of eviction, in order to be near livelihood opportunities. It affirms that public authorities must engage seriously and in good faith with the affected occupiers with a view to finding humane and pragmatic solutions. Such ‘respectful’, ‘face-to-face’ engagement gives effect to the constitutional value of human dignity, as well as the right of access to adequate housing enshrined in the Constitution.”

真杜普，居住權中心副主任說：「今天的判決是一個里程碑式的勝利，為翰內斯堡超過67000低收入居民，得到就近謀生機會而不再受驅逐威脅，或被送到擁擠與衛生條件差的居住環境裡。它肯定了公共當局必須進行認真和有誠意與受影響的住戶溝通，以期找到人性化和務實的解決方案。這種『尊重』、『面對面』接觸，才是實施憲政『人民』的價值尊嚴以及有權獲得適當住房的憲法規定」。

The Court further held that the City is obliged to consider the availability of suitable alternative accommodation or land in deciding whether to proceed with an eviction in terms of National Building Regulations and Standards Act. Du Plessis said, “COHRE hopes this will serve as an incentive to authorities to regard evictions as an absolute last resort, to be preceded by genuine efforts to restore buildings and render them safe for occupation in order to provide accommodation to people close to their place of work.”

法院還認為，城市是有責任考慮是否有合適國家建設的法規和標準規範的替代住處或土地再決定是否進行這項驅逐條款的行為。真杜普說：「居住權中心，希望這樣可以激勵當局把驅逐作為最後手段，必須進行真正的努力，以恢復建築，使它們可以安全的佔領，以便提供住宿的人接近自己的位置的工作。」

The judgement also found that section 12(6) of the NBRA, which makes it a criminal offence for occupiers to remain in occupation after a local authority has issued a notice to vacate the premises, is in violation of section 26(3) of the Constitution. Section 26(3) declares that no one may be evicted from their home without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. The Court cured the constitutional defect in the legislation by reading in provisions providing for judicial oversight of such evictions.

該判決還發現，NBRA第12條第（六）項的 ，這使得佔領者繼續留在佔領地成為刑事罪行為，當當地管理局已發出通知騰出處所，這已然違反憲法第26條（ 3 ）款。第26 （ 3 ）宣布，在沒有考慮所有適切相關的情況之下，沒有一個命令或法院可以如此判決，任何人都不得被趕出自己的家園。透過在立法院通過閱讀新條款，法院彌補了憲政缺陷解決對這種驅逐行動的失察判決。

Dr. Lilian Chenwi, Senior Researcher at the Community Law Centre, said: “Today’s judgment gives effect to South Africa’s constitutional commitment to respect and protect housing rights and is also in accordance with relevant international legal standards. In all evictions, local authorities must take the housing rights of people seriously and seek reasonable ways to avoid the devastation of homelessness by engaging meaningfully with the affected communities.”

莉蓮珍維博士 ，在社區法律中心資深研究員，說：「今天的判決按照有關國際法律標準，體現了對南非的憲法承諾尊重和保護住房權利」。對所有迫遷情事，地方當局必須嚴肅考慮重視人的居住權，深思熟慮尋求合理的途徑以避免受影響的社區的人無家可歸。

“The judgment is another vivid illustration of the significance of the right to housing in the South African constitution to those living in precarious conditions,” Chenwi said.

「判決是對那些生活在不穩定的條件之下的人們，透過南非憲法闡釋另一個住房權的意義最活生生的例子。」珍維說。

The judgment also ordered the City of Johannesburg to pay the costs of the applicants in the High Court, the SCA and the CC.

該判決還下令約翰內斯堡市府支付申請人應給予高院政制事務局局長及消委會的費用。

新聞出處：http://www.cohre.org/view_page.php?page_id=228