Research by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat has found that between 2002 and 2006 the government of Angola carried out at least 18 mass evictions involving violence and excessive use of force, in contravention of its international and national obligations. 38 In addition, the government did not comply with the procedural safeguards enshrined in both international and national law or provide adequate compensation. The government ignored the humanitarian consequences of the evictions, particularly on vulnerable groups such as women and children. It also failed to ascertain information concerning which rights residents had over their land or housing before evicting them.
Evictions have often involved intimidation and unnecessary violence and destruction, which have sometimes led to confrontational reactions from persons losing their homes and property. Residents were subject to traumatic surprise evictions, where people were caught unguarded by the unheralded arrival of police, bulldozers and trucks. Such surprise evictions are illegal under international law.
Evictees interviewed by Human Rights Watch reported that they had been subject to intimidation and threats by uniformed police officers and members of the provincial and municipal administration (fiscais). Evictees from the neighborhood of Wengi Maka, for example, told Human Rights Watch that police officers pass by saying youre too insolent, well come to destroy these houses again.39 Many reported that the same officers used excessive force against residents in the course of evictions. They fired shots, beat people, used aggressive language, and pushed residents away from their houses when they were trying to remove their possessions:
In many eviction and demolition operations, government officials (both municipal and provincial officials accompanied by police officers) are reported to have responded violently to residents who tried to question the grounds on which they were being evicted and their houses demolished. Evictees from Soba Kopassa and Cambamba I told Human Rights Watch:
In six of the neighborhoods where Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat documented eviction operations (Cambamba I, Cambamba II, Soba Kopassa, Bairro da Cidadania, Benfica and Wengi Maka), numerous evictees reported that they were physically abused by uniformed police officers using a variety of weapons, including broom sticks, baton sticks, and the handles of guns, pistols, and machetes:43
International law requires law enforcement officials to only use firearms in cases of serious threat and when other less extreme means are not available to achieve the same objectives.45 In the evictions researched for this report, however, police officers carrying semi-automatic AK47 assault rifles pointed their weapons at unarmed individuals, including children and elderly persons, gesturing aggressively, immediately upon arriving at eviction sites and during the process of demolition and removal.
In many instances the police fired shots into the air or the ground to intimidate residents. In a number of incidents shots were fired apparently indiscriminately at persons protesting evictions. For example, during evictions in Cambamba I and II on March 13, 2006, shots were fired into the crowd, hitting a small child and causing injuries to the left knee.47 Staff of national and international organizations who witnessed this particular eviction operation stated that the population was unarmed. The UN Human Rights Office in Angola described what happened:
In June 2004 a man was shot in the head by police officers during an eviction in the neighborhood of Wengi Maka, resulting in severe speech and mobility impairment.49C.L., another evictee from Wengi Maka who was shot four times in his right leg and as a result limps visibly, shared his experience with Human Rights Watch:
V.L., who was accompanying C.L. at that moment, also described what happened:
Many evictees, international and national NGO staff, and UN officers told Human Rights Watch that private security guards from a company called Visgo were present during the evictions in Cambamba I and II, on March 13, 2006.52 Witnesses said that private security guards carrying guns were acting together with the police, beating residents, and among those who opened fire:53
According to the UN Human Rights Office in Angola, the uniformed and armed individuals identified as members of the private security company Visgo made use of their heavy firearms (AK47) against the population and participated together with the police in several acts of violence against residents. The UN Office questioned the legal mandate of a private security company to take such action against the population.55
Under international law and standards, the Angolan government remains responsible for human rights abuses perpetrated by private actors and must ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate to prevent and, if appropriate, punish forced evictions carried out, without appropriate safeguards, by private persons or bodies.56
Under international law, no one can be deprived of their liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law. Anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.57 Article 39 of the Angolan constitution contains the same provision.
Under Angolan law, people can only be deprived of their liberty preventively when caught while committing a crime, when there is reason to believe the person may escape or damage a police investigation, or when there is strong and substantiated suspicion that this person committed a crime punishable with a prison sentence of over a year.58 The police must bring anyone who has been detained before the public prosecutor for confirmation of the legality of the detention on the same day as the arrest. 59
Human Rights Watch interviewed victims and eye witnesses to the arrest of more than 50 residents which did not conform to the legal standards noted above. These arrests took place during or right after evictions in Cambamba I and II, Banga We, Bairro da Cidadania, Benfica, Wengi Maka, Maria Eugenia Neto, and Soba Kopassa. In all the cases documented, police did not inform the persons of the reason for their arrest and could not legally arrest such persons because they were not caught committing a crime or endangering an ongoing criminal investigation. Most cases documented were of detentions for short periodsusually a few hoursbut in a few cases police detained individuals for several days or weeks.60
A male resident of the neighborhood Maria Eugenia Neto was detained by local government officials during an eviction operation on August 16, 2001 after he complained about the operation. He was told he had no grounds to complain and was then taken in a private car to the police station of the VII Division where he was held for two days. He was then transferred to the Palenca prison where he was held for a further four days. At no stage was he told the grounds for his detention or did he have an opportunity to see a lawyer. After his six days of detention, he was brought before a judge who authorized his continued detention for an additional 15 days, which he served at Luandas central prison. Although he was represented by a lawyer provided through legal aid at the hearing, the evictee claimed that the lawyer did not prepare his defense with him nor informed him of the offense for which he was being detained.
The man was finally released on September 7, 2001. His release form (termo de soltura), which should identify the crime for which he was arrested and detained, stated that such crime was not specified.61 Failure to inform a detainee of the grounds for his or her arrest renders a detention arbitrary and makes it unlawful under international standards. In practical terms, being denied basic information such as the alleged offence also makes it impossible to verify whether the person has been held beyond the detention limits provided for under Angolan law, as the time period varies depending on the offense.62
Human Rights Watch interviewed a female evictee from Wengi Maka who in 2004 was taken into custody with her four children, who were respectively eight years, six years, two years, and six months old. The woman and her husband were rebuilding their house, which had been demolished two years before, when police officers arrived and told them they must move. The officers left after a heated argument involving others present at the site in which they opened fire in the air. The police returned some hours later. When they did not find the man, they took the woman and children to the 33rd police station at the V Division and told her that she would only be released once her husband reported. She was neither charged nor informed of any crime she may have had committed, and appeared to have been held as a hostage to secure access to the man. The family slept three nights in a cell. The three older children spent periods detained on their own while the mother was released with the baby once a day to go home and prepare their meals.63 The eight-year-old child told Human Rights Watch: There were shots I slept on the floor in the cell. There was a padlock in the door We stayed on our own, me and my brothers, when mummy left to get food.64 Even if this woman had been legally arrested, her older children should not have been incarcerated with her, as they were minors and not accused of any crime. An alternative arrangement, such as placing the children with family members or a child care institution, should have been made. In the end, the woman and children were released after three days following representations by the residents committee of Wengi Maka.
In one case in October 2005, evictees were detained when they went to the Kilamba Kiaxi municipal administration to seek information on the demolition of their houses that had occurred the previous day. The police held approximately 20 people in custody, some in cells and others in the corridors of the police station at the V Division, from early morning until 6 to 7 p.m. None of them was formally charged with any crime or received any justification for their detention. One of these evictees recounted the arrest:
During an eviction operation in June 2005 in Soba Kopassa, a police officer beat with the handle of his gun an evictee who was demanding explanations for the forced removal. The police pushed him into a police car and took him to the police station at Vila Estoril. He stayed there two nights and was then released with the help of SOS Habitat. He was not told why he was arrested or formally charged with any crime.66
Many other evictees reported that they had been beaten with the flat/lateral part of machetes:
During most of the evictions investigated by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, the government officials and police officers unreasonably interfered with peoples privacy by taking disproportionate measures such as the destruction of personal possessions. Evictees accounts indicate that the governments actions during these evictions were excessive and caused avoidable damage to their personal belongings and livelihoods. Many people reported that they were threatened or beaten by police officers when trying to retrieve their possessions from their houses before bulldozers ran over them. Other evictees reported to Human Rights Watch that municipal and provincial officials and police officers carrying out evictions did not allow them to empty their houses. One evictee from Cambamba II recounted his experience with police officers on March 13, 2006:
Elderly residents, women and even children who did not have the means or capacity to retrieve bigger or heavier possessions, such as beds and stoves, lost everything. One woman told Human Rights Watch that when she saw the police and the bulldozers she ran to look for her children and left everything behind: We were left only with the clothes we were wearing.73
Evictees also said that bulldozers crushed their houses and crops and then covered the remains with earth so that people could not reuse them. Many who had no time to empty their houses had their personal belongings buried under the debris. They had to dig under their original housing site in search of things that could be saved. Many lost their identification papers and other documents. Several evictees recounted their experience of destruction during evictions:
In the neighborhoods of Wengi Maka and Bairro da Cidadania, evictees told Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat that whenever doors, metal sheets or any other parts of the houses were left intact after demolitions, unidentified civilians accompanying local municipal officials and police officers collected these materials, put them in trucks and took them away:
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has clearly stated that all those carrying out evictions should be properly identified to safeguard residents against abuses.78 The use of untrained and unaccountable individuals to carry out evictions greatly increases the risk that evictees physical security and property will endangered, and that there will be little recourse should such incidents occur.
Harassment of civil society organizations
Police officers also intimidated staff of human rights organizations who witnessed eviction operations. According to a journalist present during the March 13, 2006 eviction in Cambamba:
SOS Habitat director Luiz Araujo was arrested during evictions in the area of Cambamba I, Cambamba II, and Banga We, on November 24, 2005. Araujo arrived at the eviction site around 9:30 a.m. and soon after tried to address the police officers present at the site to enquire about the eviction order. He was surrounded by four or five police officers who beat him, put him in a police vehicle, and took him and 12 residents of the area, to the police station located at project Nova Vida. While there, he was kept in the office of the police station commander. On the same day he was transferred to the police station at Golfe, put in a cell, and not allowed to see a lawyer. The following day he and the 12 residents were taken by the police to the court. The residents were forced to keep their shirts off during the car drive. At the court Araujo was allowed to see his lawyer for ten minutes before being brought before the judge. The judge heard a government official (fiscal) and a police officer. At no point during this process was Araujo informed of the reason for his arrest or heard by the judge. The judge decided to return the case to DNIC for further investigation and released Araujo and the others, having taken and registered their personal identity elements (termo de identidade e residencia).80
SOS activist Rafael Morais was arrested on May 5, 2006, during an eviction at Bairro da Cidadania. He was arrested by members of the Command for the Protection of Strategic Objectives Unit (Comando da Unidade de Proteccao dos Objectivos Estrategicos, CUPOE) when trying to explain the rights of the residents. They accused him of being an agitator and took him to the municipal administration. While in custody they kept him barefoot and without a shirt. He was released later that same day after intervention by UN staff and a lawyer from the Angolan bar association.81
During evictions in Wengi Maka on June 26 of the previous year, the same activist was also arbitrarily arrested. The police did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest and he was not committing a crime. According to SOS Habitat Director Luiz Araujo, Rafael Morais identified himself as an SOS Habitat activist, addressed the official that headed the group of police officers, and asked clarifications about the legality of the acts they were carrying out. Without obtaining any answer, he was immediately detained together with citizen [name withheld] and [both] were subsequently transported in a police car, to the police station at Calemba II.82
Luiz Araujo went to the police station to enquire about the arrest of his coworker and, while there, was also detained and taken to the command of the V Division:
An eye witness to the March 13, 2006 eviction in the Cambambas testified that SOS Habitat activists were harassed at other times:
The SOS staff member who was arrested was released later the same day, after the Director of SOS Habitat and staff of international organizations present at the eviction site went to the police station and made the case against his illegal detention.
Human Rights Watchs interviews with evictees indicate that they were not sufficiently informed of, or consulted about, planned eviction operations. Contacts between the government and the affected population prior to and during evictions varied greatly in each neighborhood. However, in all of the 18 mass evictions documented by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, evictees reported lack of, or insufficient information concerning: (a) the authority that ordered the eviction and the reasoning behind it (justification); (b) the specific use to which the cleared land would be put after the eviction; (c) compensation to displaced residents; (d) the legal status or length of their occupation or possession of the land; and (e) possible alternatives to their removal. Most evictees reported that they had never been informed that the government would need their land before eviction day.
Evictees in Cambamba I and II, Banga We, Soba Kopassa, Talatona, Benfica, Onga, Mbondo Chape, and Munlevos reported that municipal officials visited their neighborhoods with no prior notice and numbered peoples houses. Although residents could not be precise about the dates when the numbering occurred, it usually preceded the first eviction in the neighborhood by a few days. In most of these cases, officials provided no information about the purpose of the numbering, even when residents asked them directly.86
Evictees from Benfica told Human Rights Watch that only those individuals who were home on the day of the numbering had their houses marked. All those who were not present had their houses ignored. Later when they were evicted and their houses demolished, only those who had their houses marked were relocated.
F.T. told Human Rights Watch that he had lived in Benfica since 2000, but he was traveling when they marked the houses: Because they did not tell they were coming, many people were not home. Those who were not home did not receive anything. When I and the others went there to complain, they told us there were no more [relocation] houses left.87
In Munlevos, the opposite happened. When municipal officers came to mark the houses in September 2005, they only marked those houses whose residents were not present and only the marked houses were supposed to be demolished:
In the Cambambas neighborhood in November 2005, the numbering of the houses was also a prelude to demolitions:
The exact reason for marking the houses, as indicated in the accounts above, varied greatly from one neighborhood to the other. Since the government fails to provide clear (or any) information to residents, the numbering of houses often creates fear, suspicion, and confusion.
Many evictees told Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat that they tried to request information about eviction operations from the municipality or provincial government, but that officials would not meet them. An evictee from Sapu Vacaria told Human Rights Watch that when she and her neighbor tried to seek information about their imminent eviction after numbering, municipal and provincial authorities would send us from one place to another.90Evictees from Mbondo Chape affirmed that they were continuously told by local government officials to come back at a later date after waiting for hours and left with no reply but the setting of a new date for a meeting where the same situation would repeat itself.91
Municipal officials told farmers from Bem-Vindo that their land would be expropriated for the construction of a public hospital. When farmers contacted the provincial government and the Ministry of Health to discuss their removal, officials at both institutions told them they were not aware of projects under development in that area:
As described earlier in this report, Angolan legislation requires the government to carry out an impact assessment, including a public hearing with the communities affected, when planning a development project with significant social or environmental impact.94None of the evictees interviewed by Human Rights Watch had been involved in or knew of any such impact assessment and consultations in their respective neighborhoods.
Several residents of areas under the constant threat of evictions told Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat that they never know who is telling the truth and that they wanted a formal and open procedure to take place so they could better understand what was happening to their land. One evictee from Bairro da Cidadania who remained in the eviction site after the eviction waiting for negotiations with the government regarding adequate compensation or relocation, explained [h]e [the municipal administrator] has many languages. First he comes here saying the land belongs to [name of a private investor withheld],95 later he says this is an industrial area, then he says we really have to go, because this belongs to the state.96
While international law does not prescribe a specific notice period prior to evictions, the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has recommended that there should be a notice period of at least 90 days before resettlement.97 The general deadline under Angola law for notification to individuals of any public administration decisions is at least eight days.98
In the majority of evictions investigated by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, the government gave no formal notice before municipal officials and police forces arrived to carry out evictions. Bulldozers started to demolish houses and crops immediately upon arrival with no prior warning. Many evictees were not present when their houses were demolished and returned home to find only the debris of what used to be their houses:
In the few cases where evictees were clearly warned about when evictions would take place, this notice to the evictees came after several other evictions had already taken place, was not issued by an appropriate authority, or the notice period was insufficient. For example, in the Cambambas, in February 2006, people were given 72 hours to leave their land by the director of the development project on site (Nova Vida) through an announcement on Radio Eclesia.101 Such general announcements are contrary to the legal obligation under Angolan law to notify each individual affected by decisions of the administration. They also hamper evictees capacity to submit individual complaints to contest or appeal the evictions order because they do not contain sufficient information to prepare an administrative or judicial claim.
In Boavista in May 20, 2004, people were orally informed by municipal officials that they would have to leave the following day: They used to come and say that we should be prepared Then one day they came during the afternoon, around 6 p.m., saying we would be removed around 7 a.m. the next day.102
In Bairro da Cidadania in April 2006, evictees received a written notification but only 48 hours before the evictions were due to take place. Only 12 families received the notification, although almost 300 would be affected by the eviction. The notice did not precisely define the purpose of the evictions and failed to include proper reference of its legal basis:
During all mass evictions documented by Human Rights Watch, when requested to present eviction orders issued by a competent authority, municipal officials and police forces failed to provide any document outlining the reasons for the eviction and naming the authority responsible for it (see also section on harassment of NGO activists).
According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, states party to the ICESCR must ensure that individuals have a right to adequate compensation for any property that is affected by eviction orders, including both personal possessions and real estate.104 Angolan law also obliges the state to provide compensation.105 Neither international nor national legal standards define precisely what constitutes adequate compensation for eviction, or what form it may take. In civil law countries, such as Angola, governments usually provide either monetary compensation, in-kind compensation (alternative housing or land, material for rebuilding, etc.), or a combination of both. An Angolan land law expert confirmed to Human Rights Watch that it is a common practice in legal terms in Angola for authorities to provide alternative land or housing instead of money as a form of compensation to families evicted from their land or residence. This expert noted that the underlying assumption behind compensation is to create a situation as close as possible to the situation that existed before the eviction.106 According to the information collected by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, in most situations the Angolan government provided some form of compensation but without a consistent procedure in place to determine either its form or amount. However, many evictees received no compensation at all:
In several neighborhoods where evictees received some form of compensation, they described the process of allocating such compensation as flawed, irregular, or unfair: [t]hey were counting on there being few people but after all there are a lot and they dont have money anymore. They started out by paying well but now they are not paying enough.112Witnesses told Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat that people sometimes received money in envelopes and were made to sign receipts before seeing their content: [f]irst they tell people to sign; when people see the amount they complain. But they say now youve already signed.113
Evictees from Bem-Vindo said that only about 30-35 small farmers of the 105 affected by evictions in this neighborhood had received some money as compensation when Human Rights Watch visited the area in August 2006. The ones that did not agree with the amounts initially proposed have been trying to negotiate compensation since August 2005 when local administration officials first came to the area and told them the government needed their land. In November 2005 several land plots had been fenced without the farmers consent and without compensation having been agreed. Many small farmers and residents have meanwhile left the area, either because they eventually agreed with the compensation proposed, were discouraged by the lack of progress and intimidation, or because they could no longer access their land.114
In Benfica, Mbondo Chape, and Bem-Vindo, some evictees who received monetary compensation for their demolished houses or land found the amounts insufficient and much lower than the market value they estimated for their property.115In Mbondo Chape and Onga evictees reported that in their neighborhood residents received different amounts of money as compensation, although no evaluation was carried out to ascertain the exact size and value of each housing unit or land plot.116 In Bem-Vindo some evictees received compensation while others did notwithout any justification or apparent criteria for such different treatments:
Evictees from Cambamba I recounted a similar experience. They told Human Rights Watch that the governments housing project being developed in the area provided compensation for the residents evicted initially in 2001, but not for those evicted in 2004, 2005, and 2006.119 On April 18, 2006, when people had been living in makeshift shacks for almost a year and the neighborhood was almost destroyed, the director of the project sent two representatives to the community to register the remaining evictees, allegedly to provide for their relocation.120 The document appointing these two representatives, however, said nothing about the purpose of the registration and when Human Rights Watch visited in December 2006, these evictees had not been relocated.
SOS Habitat staff accompanied one group of evictees from Bem-Vindo to the municipal administration of Samba to support them in requesting information on the criteria used to define the compensation amounts. According to a staff person from SOS Habitat, this was the administrators reaction:
During the course of this research, Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat identified five relocation and resettlement sites provided by the government: Zangu, Panguila, Sapu, Camana, and Fubu.122 Human Rights Watch interviewed evictees from Onga, Benfica, and Boavista who had received alternative housing or land plots in the relocation areas of Fubu and Panguila.123 Evictees from Onga and Benfica told Human Rights Watch that they had not wanted to be removed to Fubu or Panguila but had no option because their houses were destroyed and they had no other place to go:
One woman evicted from Boavista in May 2005 and relocated to Panguila, told Human Rights Watch that residents were not informed that they were going to Panguila until after they were evicted and on the day they were transported to the new site in trucks.126 Two other young women relocated on the same day said it was the truck driver that told them where they were going.127 In Bairro da Cidadania the municipal administration offered the residents bare land plots in Sapu as compensation, but only after evictions had taken place, and only when faced with the evictees who had stayed in the area under very harsh living conditions and who insisted on adequate resettlement conditions.128
In a meeting with Human Rights Watch, the Angolan minister for urban management and environment provided general information on low income housing units built by the government in recent years, some of which have been used to resettle evictees from several areas of Luanda. However, the data from the ministry did not include precise information on the total number of evictees who received land plots or housing as compensation for the evictions from the areas researched for this report.129
In some neighborhoods researched by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, evictees reported that local government officials came to the area and collected some information about families, their date of arrival and settling in the area, and number of residents in the neighborhood. In many of these cases officials gave residents a paper with a number (fichas) and often told them they were written with a view to awarding compensation.130However, such officials failed to provide any further information or consult residents about the amounts of compensation or possible relocation sites. Evictees reported they often never came back to the neighborhood, continuously told people to wait, or just halted the process once they realized the residents did not agree with the proposed compensation amounts or relocation areas.131
In the mass evictions researched by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, the government failed to ascertain whether people had any formal title or other legal entitlement to the land before evicting them.
One evictee from Talatona told the two organizations that the government never asked for any document; it didnt matter if people had document or not, they just said the government needed the land.132Evictees from Gaiolas, Soba Kopassa, and Fubu told us this was also the case in their neighborhoods: They hushed away people with and people without documents. They never asked.133
In addition to being illegal, it is also not reasonable to make proper expropriation procedures and compensation dependent on formal titles in a city where informality is so predominant and where the government has failed for decades to provide efficient and accessible land registration mechanisms. (See section below on security of tenure.)
Over the period of 2002 to 2006, many informal housing areas saw repeated evictions taking place at different times. Many families, who had nowhere else to go after the first eviction operations and rebuilt shelter in the same area, were later evicted again.
In the area of Cambambas, Banga We, and 28 de Agosto residents have already faced six eviction operations; in Bairro da Cidadania, residents have faced five evictions. These neighborhoods have been completely demolished but some evictees remain in the areas waiting for proper relocation:
Residents of different parts of Maria Eugenia Neto have been subject to evictions and demolitions at five different times and most of them have rebuilt their houses with their own means. Benfica sustained four evictions and the neighborhood has been completely cleared.
Soba Kopassa has experienced demolitions three times and residents have mostly rebuilt since the last eviction in September 2005. An evictee from Soba Kopassa shared his experience with Human Rights Watch:
People stay in some evictions sites or return soon after because they have nowhere else to go and often the land from which they were evicted remains unused. For example, in Soba Kopassa and Bairro da Cidadania, people were evicted respectively for the expansion of a public hospital and the creation of an industrial zone, neither of which had been carried out at the time this report was written. The government could have waited until construction started to legally evict people and used that time to consult with them and to explore suitable alternatives to relocation.
Repeated evictions highlight that the governments support to people immediately following evictions was inappropriatehad the government provided adequate compensation or, at least, emergency shelter immediately following an eviction, people would not likely have returned to live in makeshift shelter in places that they had already been evicted from (see section below on inadequate shelter following evictions).
International human rights standards clearly state that evictions should not result in homelessness or render individuals vulnerable to the violation of other human rights.136 The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clarified that [w]here those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the government must take all appropriate measures to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.137In many of the situations researched by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, evictions resulted in deprivation and in some cases homelessness. One evictee told Human Rights Watch:
In Cambamba I and II, Human Rights Watch visited evictees who, following repeated evictions in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (the last on March 13, 2006), were living in makeshift shelters built from old plastic sheets and materials recovered from the debris of the demolitions. Human Rights Watch researchers visited the Cambambas area three times during 2006 with SOS activists. During a visit in April 2006, two evictee women in Cambamba II told us, [w]e have no place to go, so we stay here and wait.140 In August 2006, Human Rights Watch witnessed the poor conditions in which people were still living through the cold season in Angola. At that time, more than 100 families were still waiting for a decision by the government concerning compensation or alternative relocation to affected families. When Human Rights Watch visited the site again in the beginning of December 2006 the situation remained unchanged. The government had provided no emergency shelter or assistance to these families.
The provincial government gave empty land plots in relocation areas to some evictees from Onga. These evictees affirmed they did not receive any construction material to build new houses to replace the demolished ones, or for the construction of emergency shelter. They lived for months in shacks while saving money to build:
Evictees from Benfica told us that after their first eviction in September 2002 local government officials took them to a land plot not far from their original residence site. A few days later, people claiming to own this new land told the evictees to leave because they were on private property. The evictees returned to the original eviction site by their own means and were later evicted again:
When Human Rights Watch visited Bairro da Cidadania in April 2006, a small group of evictees from this neighborhood had accepted a compensation offer from the government of bare plots in Sapu. Human Rights Watch did not carry out interviews in Sapu but visited the site, which was very distant and isolated from the main road into central Luanda. People were living there in makeshift shacks and no water supply or basic sanitation had been established. Those evictees who stayed in Bairro da Cidadania to try to negotiate with the local authorities for a better relocation site as compensation for their eviction were not given any emergency help. When Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat visited in April 2006 they were living in shacks made from the debris of their previous homes. When Human Rights Watch visited the same site again in August 2006, the evictees had been moved a few hundred meters but their shelter was the same.
The majority of individuals interviewed by Human Rights Watch who were resettled had been evicted from areas in the extreme south of the city and relocated to the north side, several municipalities away.143Average relocation distance was more than 30 kilometers, which affected evictees access to jobs, health care, and education.
An evictee from Benfica relocated to Panguila, told Human Rights Watch that still today it can take her three hours to reach work back in Benfica.144 She said that initially public transportation was only available in Panguila from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. Another evictee told Human Rights Watch that when he was first taken to Panguila, he would leave work just past 6 p.m. and would only get home around 12 a.m., because at that time candongueiros (local informal buses) did not serve Panguila.145
Two young women evicted from Boavista told us that their older sister lost her job after resettlement to Panguila because she was unable to arrive as early as required by the employer due to distance and lack of transportation.146 One girl evictee now living in Panguila told us that her father also had to look for another job after relocation from Benfica. Her mother still went to work in Benfica, but had to stay overnight several days with other family members because it was too distant and difficult to come back home everyday.147 Access to transportation in the relocation areas visited by Human Rights Watch has improved (for example, today buses serve Panguila until 7 p.m.), but the residents of these areas still claim that there are not enough buses or that they stop running too early.
Evictees relocated in Fubu were settled in an area that is more than one kilometer away from the central road to Luanda where public transportation runs.148Many told us that when they were relocated, not even candongueiros served the area.
Women were particularly affected by the interruption of income-generating activities such as the selling of homemade donuts, popcorn and home grown vegetables in nearby street markets:149
A significant proportion of female evictees interviewed by Human Rights Watch were heads of households, many of whom were widows who lost their husbands during the civil war:
In Panguila, there were no medical centers in operation when the first group of evictees arrived in March 2003. Even today, Panguila and especially Fubu residents must travel a long way (20 kilometers in the case of Fubu) to get to the nearest hospital. Nearby medical centers are private and charge for the treatments.
Childrens access to education was also often disrupted because of evictions. In some cases, schools were not available at relocation sites when evictees were initially moved there. Distance and lack of transportation made it difficult to access schools in other areas. When Human Rights Watch visited, only primary schools were available in the relocation sites of Panguila and Fubu. Teenagers in junior high school had to walk two hours every day to get to school.
Two young women relocated from Boavista to Panguila told Human Rights Watch about the difficulties they still face to go to and come back from school in central Luanda:
This situation represents a potential risk to these young women, who have to walk on their own in the dark and sometimes cross isolated areas in a city marked by street criminality. The lack of transportation may render these girls vulnerable to assaults and abuses, including sexual violence.
In Cambamba I two evictees told Human Rights Watch that they were unable to send their children to school for more than a year. They tried to register their children in the nearby public school located in the housing project Nova Vida (developed in the land from which they were evicted) but were not allowed by the school board to do so. Today these children go to schools that are very distant:
Secure land tenure gives residents clear legal rights against the government or private entities who make competing claims to the land. When evictions occur, clear rights to the land place residents in a stronger position to negotiate reasonable conditions for vacating their housing or land and adequate compensation. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that irrespective of the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure that guarantees legal protection against forced evictions, harassment, and other threats.159
In the cases researched by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, insecure tenure made residents particularly vulnerable to forced evictions. Insecure tenure in these cases resulted from three main factors: inadequate land legislation and lack of public information about land rights and urban management policies; inadequate registration procedures; and a consequent false perception of security of tenure by residents.
Inadequate land legislation and lack of public information about land rights and urban management policies
The legal framework for land rights in Angola that has been in place since independence is complex and confusing. Lawyers and land law experts in Angola have highlighted this situation:
After 1975 private property established under colonial laws that was not nationalized or confiscated was respected, but individuals could no longer acquire new private property rights.161Instead, they were granted surface or possession rights (right to use and exploit) over land owned by the state, including land that had been nationalized or confiscated.162 Possession wasand still isprotected by law to the extent that even bad faith possessors (those who knew that the land they occupied belonged to someone else) are entitled to compensation for expenses incurred on necessary improvements to the property in case of eviction by the rightful owner. Additionally, people in possession of property over an extended period of time (five to 20 years, depending of the circumstances in which possession was established) could acquire property rights over a piece of land.163
The Constitutional Law approved in 1992 declared that the state respects and protects the property of people and the property and possession of land by peasants.164 However, it also stated that all land belongs originally to the state. The exact meaning of this provision was never clarified and Angolan land law experts have different interpretations of it today.165 The first land law of independent Angola, also approved in 1992, recognized land occupation and concessions dating before its entering into force, both before and after independence.166 However, it was mostly concerned with rural land. The occupation of urban areas was largely unregulated until 2004, when the Government approved a new Land Law167and a Law on Territorial and Urban Management (law on territorial management).168
These two laws provide a comprehensive framework for the concession, acquisition and exercise of land rights in both rural and urban areas, but so far they have not been effectively implemented. The government took several years to approve general implementing regulations.169It has also so far failed to approve other more specific regulations required by these laws that could protect people from forced evictions.170Finally the government has not developed the urban land management plans required by law which should define what land is reserved by the state and which areas are appropriate for residential, commercial, industrial, or other activities.171
In some urban centers such as Luanda, alternative planning instruments have been approved and implemented in substitution for the urban land management plans. However, these do not match the standards set forth in the land and territorial management legislation. These instruments were also not created in consultation with, or widely publicized among, residents of the areas they cover. In most cases researched by Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat, evictees had heard rumors about the projects to be developed in their areas of residence but did not receive consistent and accurate information from government officials, especially in advance of evictions.172
Finally, Angola has not passed specific legislation detailing when and how evictions can be carried out legally. This means that when the evictions documented in this report took place, the conditions under which central and local administration or private individuals (or both in association) can carry out such operations were not defined by law. In the absence of such legislation, the standards for verifying whether evictions were legal are those in the land and urban management laws and regulations and in the general administrative provisions described abovewhich were not observed in the evictions described in this report.
As a result of this complex legal situation, people cannot know with certainty where they can legally settle for residential or other purposes. They cannot, therefore, be presumed to have illegally occupied (or, indeed, be known to be illegally occupying) land from which they were evicted. The governments actions, however, indicate that it does presume that all people are illegally occupying land and fails to ascertain whether this is, in fact, true in each individual case. Persons affected also do not know exactly what their rights are, or what the government can legitimately do to pursue its goals. Their land tenure is inevitably insecure, which can lead to human rights violations such as those that occurred in the forced evictions documented above.
In addition to the confusing and overlapping legislation highlighted, the land registry system in Angola was essentially inactive throughout the war period due to human, material, and financial resource constraints.
Past practice in Angola shows that processing regularization requests can be a very difficult task.173 The 1992 land law established a period for regularization of informal land tenure but the government was unable to successfully carry out this endeavormostly because of the war, but also because it lacked resources and the population was not sufficiently informed about this regularization period.174
Informal areas in Luanda are currently estimated to comprise approximately 400,000 households.175 A review of official files by an Angolan organization working on land issues suggests that only approximately five percent of the regularization requests submitted by individuals to the government in 2005 were duly processed.176 The remaining 95 percent were not processed because of physical, human, and financial resource constraints. The Angolan government is aware of this situation. According to Sita Jose, the minister for urban planning and environment:
The minister acknowledged that other problems have also made regularization a difficult process:
From the perspective of a member of the public seeking land title, the process appears costlyanother barrier to the poor:
In the mass evictions researched for this report in which persons were relocated by the government, evictees were not provided with formal titles or security to the new land or housing, leaving them vulnerable to further eviction. Evictees from Benfica relocated to Panguila told Human Rights Watch that the government destroyed the housing they had built with their own savings and resources and provided alternative housing in which they only had tenancy.181In Fubu evictees said that they received a resettlement card but this card said nothing about the legal status of the land or housing or their rights over it. Some evictees with such cards have had problems with local government officials who come and tell them they cannot build on the land to which they were relocated.182
The 2004 Land Law, which came into force on February 7, 2005, addresses the problems described above by establishing a period of three years for regularization of untitled occupancy of land.183 This means that the government, acknowledging the overwhelming informality of land occupancy as well as its own limitations in providing for land registration in the past, has decided it is necessary to provide for a specific period within which citizens can regularize their situation. However, many of the evictions documented in this report were carried out after the Land law had been passed but before its implementing regulations had been introduced, in ways that contradict its protective intent. While this may not have been technically illegal, it nevertheless suggests bad faith and a lack of regard for the rights of the poor.
Equally important, the Land Law establishes a deadline for regularization but does not define the governments responsibilities to ensure that (a) that it can effectively implement the law, and (b) that people will in practice have a genuine opportunity to legalize their situation. The failure to define these responsibilities gives rise to concern that forcible evictions might take place after the three-year period under the cloak of seeming legality because individuals have failed to regularize their land in a situation where the government has not provided sufficient resources or established appropriate procedures to ensure there is capacity to promote and process regularization requests. This concern is given weight by the fact that in the past the government has not ensured that there is sufficient capacity to process all regularization requests.
According to the Land Law, the onus is on each individual to request regularization. If, after the three-year period, individuals have not submitted a regularization request to the authorities, the government is authorized to use judicial or forcible means to obtain the land they occupy.184 Such forcible means include: (a) the appropriation, destruction or deterioration of some thing; (b) the elimination of undue resistance offered to the exercise of the [states] right [over the land]; and (c) anything analogous. Not only are these measures formulated in broad and unclear terms, but their use is subject to only two conditions: they must be indispensable to avoid the nullification of the (states) right over the land and they must not exceed what is necessary to avoid damage to that right.185 This means that after the three-year period the state will be authorized, by law, to forcibly evict individuals in a situation of untitled occupation under a minimal set of conditions that do not reflect the safeguards required by the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and described before in this report.
The impact of this measure cannot be underestimated, given that the majority of Luandas population lives in informal areas:
To give effect to the security of tenure principle, the Angolan government should put in place concrete and effective measures to register land currently under informal possession during the three-year period, and should provide for regularization procedures to continue to be available beyond that period. Unless this is done, the deadline for regularization will in practice result in increasing insecurity of tenure, thus leaving many of Luandas residents vulnerable to forced evictions.
As mentioned earlier in this report, because of the situation of real estate properties immediately following independence, informal or untitled occupation of land and housing became a common form of tenure in Luanda. The displacement of populations during the war made this a widespread situation.187 This situation did not mean, however, that people necessarily perceived their tenure as insecure. Receipts for informal transactions of land or housing, payment of construction, or other fees to municipal officials and long standing occupation without opposition by authorities caused many residents to believe that they were legally settled in the land they occupied.188
In Maria Eugenia Neto evictees told Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat that [i]n March 2002 municipal administration officials came to the neighborhood and asked to organize the neighborhood and submit a regularization request.We did in 2002.189 Evictees from Bairro da Cidadania said that as recently as 2004 they bought land from municipal officials or people acting on their behalf, so they believed their settlement in the area was legal. They were later informed this sale was illegal because the officials who allocated the land plots were not empowered to do so. 190
In Cambambas residents were told by representatives of project Nova Vida, during the first phase of the project (which ended in November 2005), that the area they were occupying was not required by the state and that if the government would need their land it would come and talk to them. After that, government officials came to evict them and demolished their houses with no prior discussion or notice.191
Until they are faced with forced evictions, the majority of residents of informal areas do not believe that they need to seek formal registration and titling of land to secure their tenure. Because of the inadequate legislation and registration procedures and the lack of public information about these, residents often do not know what they should do to register land or that they may be required to register formal land rights they may have acquired over the years.192 A 47-year-old female evictee from Mbondo Chape told Human Rights Watch that she did not register the land she has occupied and cultivated for more than 20 years because she did not know she could or should do so. She now knows she needs to contact the local authorities, but she does not know exactly where to go or what to do.193
Although in the mass evictions researched in this report, instances where preexisting formal land registration and title were established were the exceptions, several evictees told Human Rights Watch that they had documents proving that they had requested authorization for construction of residences or the regularization of existing housing.194 According to Angolan general administrative regulations, when such requests are submitted to central or local authorities by a citizen and are not replied to within 90 days they are considered tacitly granted.195 Accordingly, anyone who submitted such a request to the authorities and did not receive a reply within the deadline has, in effect, had their occupancy authorized by the government. Such persons can legitimately expect that they have a degree of security of tenure that protects them from forced evictions. However, such perception of security of tenure is shattered when the government proceeds to evict people without verifying whether they have submitted such requests. For example, the residents of Bairro da Cidadania submitted requests for regularization of their occupancy. Between February and April 2005, approximately 290 people submitted individual files to Luandas provincial government. By June 2006 none had been replied to, but the government still carried out forced evictions in this area in 2005 and 2006.196
In Talatona, Bem-Vindo, Gaiolas, and Rio Seco initial plans for the removal of small farmers were suspended because the farmers complained. Farmers associations and residents committees in these areas are trying to negotiate appropriate relocation and compensation terms with local authorities and representatives of on-site development projects, but a final solution is pending. In Wengi Maka the construction project announced for the area has not been started and people who remain in the area are at risk of further evictions when construction starts. Unless the governments performance changes significantly from the practices documented in this report, reconstruction and development projects targeted for informal areas will likely result in further forced evictions in Luanda.
38 Although there are no accurate statistics or data on the number of persons evicted in each eviction researched for this report, Human Rights Watch documented at least 18 eviction operations where more than 100 people were affected. Human Rights Watch also documented many smaller scale evictions that took place in the same areas within the period covered (2002-2006) which have also been included in this report.
39 Human Rights Watch interview with B.C., 78-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 3, 2006. The names of all evictees and some witnesses quoted in this report have been changed to protect their privacy and avoid potential retaliation.
40 Human Rights Watch interview with R.J., 66-year-old evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, August 10, 2006 about evictions in 2005 and 2006.
41 Human Rights Watch interview with K.B., 42-year-old evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006.
42 Human Rights Watch interview with R.R., 24-year-old evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, August 10, 2006.
43 Evictees reported police violence in the eviction operations that took place in Cambamba I and Cambamba II on September 9, 2004, November 24, 2005, and March 13, 2006; in Soba Kopassa on June 2005, continued subsequently in August, September, and October 2005; in Bairro da Cidadania on September 9, 2004, October 10, 2004, September 26, 2005, and May 5, 2006; in Benfica on September 9, 2002, March 19, 2003, and May 22, 2006; in Wengi Maka on December 4, 5 and 10, 2003 and on June 21, 2004.
44 Human Rights Watch interview with H.J., 22-year-old evictee from Cambamba II, Luanda, July 29, 2006. Many evictees told Human Rights Watch they were beaten with machetes. They all explained that the flat/lateral part of the machete was used, never the cutting edge.
45 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 at 112 (1990).
46 Human Rights Watch interview with M.M., 57-year-old evictee from Cambamba II, Luanda, July 29, 2006.
47 The General Specialized Hospital of Kilamba Kiaxi issued a medical report addressed to the United Nations and to SOS Habitat on April 18, 2006, confirming that this child was hit by a bullet in the left knee causing a flesh wound (on file with Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat).
48 United Nations Human Rights Office in Angola, Information Note, Forced evictions and demolitions of housing in Luanda, municipality of Kilamba Kiaxi (Bairro Cambamba I and II) on March 13th 2006 (Information Note, Forced evictions in Luanda).
49 Human Rights Watch interview with R.W., 28-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 3, 2006.
50 Human Rights Watch interview with C.L., 34-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 3, 2006.
51 Human Rights Watch interview with V.L., 25-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 3, 2006.
52 In interviews with Human Rights Watch, many evictees generally identified perpetrators of violence as police officers. However, when asked if the perpetrators were wearing uniforms, several victims affirmed they saw men in three different uniforms present: police officers in dark blue uniform (Rapid Intervention Police) or ocean blue uniforms (Public Order Police), both belonging to the National Police, as well as men in green uniforms used by the private security company Visgo.
53 Witnesses included staff from OXFAM, the United Nations Human Rights Office in Angola, a catholic priest from ACC, and SOS Habitat activists.
54 Human Rights Watch interview with L.R., 31-year-old evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006.
55 UN Human Rights Office in Luanda, Information Note, Forced evictions in Luanda.
56 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7, para. 9. The Practice of Forced Evictions: Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement, adopted by the Expert Seminar on the Practice of Forced Evictions Geneva, 11-13 June 1997, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/forcedevictions.htm (accessed February 20, 2007). Article 5 of the guidelines states: While forced evictions can be carried out, sanctioned, demanded, proposed, initiated or tolerated by a variety of distinct actors, responsibility for forced evictions under international law, ultimately, is held by States. Also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988). In para. 174 the Inter-American Court held that The State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.
57 ICCPR, art. 9.
58 Human Rights Watch telephone and in-person interviews with Angolan lawyer David Mendes, Luanda, November and December 2006 and February 2007. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Association for Justice Peace and Democracy (AJPD), Angolan human rights NGO focusing on the criminal justice system, Luanda, March 13, 2007.
59 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Angolan criminal justice expert with AJPD, Luanda, March 14, 2007.
60 In 27 interviews conducted by Human Rights Watch in Cambamba I and II, Banga We, Bairro da Cidadania, Benfica, Wengi Maka, Maria Eugenia Neto, and Soba Kopassa, evictees reported that they had been arrested or witnessed the arrest of individuals or groups of individuals (varying from two or three to approximately 20). According to these accounts, individuals arrested were held in police custody usually for periods of a few hours, or sometimes one or two days, and were either told nothing about the reason for their arrest or simply told they were agitating the population or disobeyed the officials carrying out evictions.
61 Human Rights interview with H.T., 40-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006.
62 The legal period for pre-trial detention varies according to the type of crime and the type of penalty a specific crime entails. Lei da Prisao Preventiva em Instruccao Preparatoria, Lei 18A/92, July 17, 1992.
63 Human Rights Watch interview with B.K., 26-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 3, 2006.
64 Human Rights Watch interview with J.C., 8-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 3, 2006.
65 Human Rights Watch interview with A.M., 40-year-old evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006.
66 Human Rights Watch interview with K.B., evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 8, 2006.
67 Human Rights Watch interview with B.X., 30-year-old evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006 about an incident that took place on July 2005 during evictions initiated the month before.
68 Human Rights Watch interview with T.B., 33-year-old female evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006 about an incident that took place on March 13, 2006. Projecto Nova Vida is a government housing project being developed in the area of Banga We, Cambamba I and Cambamba II. The second phase of development of this project has been under implementation since November 2005. See http://www.imogestin.com/index.html (accessed March 21, 2007).
69 Human Rights Watch interview with L.R., 31-year-old evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006 about the arrest that took place during evictions on March 2006.
70The National Directorate for Criminal Investigation (Direccao Nacional de Investigacao Criminal, DNIC) is the division of the National Police in charge of criminal investigation.
71 Human Rights Watch interview with G.T., 54-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about an incident in May 2006, the fifth time houses in the area were destroyed in forced eviction operations.
72 Human Rights Watch interview with C.A., 35-year-old evictee from Cambamba II, Luanda, July 29, 2006.
73 Human Rights Watch interview with M.M., 57-year-old evictee from Cambamba II, Luanda, July 29, 2006 about evictions on November 2005. M.M. had already been evicted from the nearby area of Banga We a few years before.
74 Human Rights Watch interview with K.M., 44-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about an incident on May 5, 2006. K.M. had cultivated her land in the area since 1981 and resided there since 1997.
75 Human Rights Watch interview with F.M., 43-year-old female evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006 about an incident on November 24, 2005. She had been in this land since 1976 and been told by local officials she could remain there.
76 Human Rights Watch interview with F.G., 90-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006. F.G.s shelter was destroyed again in May 2006.
77 Human Rights Watch interview with J.K, 60-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006.
78 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7, para. 15 (e).
79 Human Rights Watch email interview with Sarah Grainger, BBC journalist, London, June 22, 2006.
80 Human Rights Watch interviews with Luiz Araujo, Luanda and Lisbon, December 2006, March 2007, and May 2007.
81 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Rafael Morais, SOS Habitat staff member, June 12, 2006.
82 Submission by SOS Habitat to the Public Prosecutor, dated June 28, 2005 (on file with Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat).
83 Written comments by SOS Habitat Director Luiz Araujo to Human Rights Watch, Lisbon, February 28, 2007; Submission by SOS Habitat to the Public Prosecutor, dated June 28, 2005 (on file with Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat). Mr. Adriano Parreira is a university teacher and the head of the Independent African Party (Partido Africano Independente, PAI).
84 Luiz Araujo is the director of the Angolan organization SOS Habitat.
85 Human Rights Watch phone interview with C.P., staff of a human rights organization based in Luanda who requested anonymity, Luanda, July 4, 2006.
86 Human Rights Watch interview with P.S., evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August, 3, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with P.M., evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with L.H. and K.T., evictees from Benfica, Luanda, August 5 and 8, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with P.R., evictee from Benfica relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 5, 2006.
87 Human Rights Watch interview with F.T., 25-year-old evictee from Benfica, Luanda, August 7, 2006.
88 Human Rights Watch interview with V.E., 45-year-old resident of Munlevos, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about an eviction on July 3, 2006 and the numbering of houses the days immediately before the eviction.
89 Human Rights Watch interview with W.R., 37-year-old male evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006. W.R. was a demobilized soldier evicted in November 2005. He was arrested even before the bulldozers got to his house.
90 Human Rights Watch interview with C.C., 60-year-old evictee from Sapu Vacaria, Luanda, August 3, 2006 about incidents on March 19, 2003; Human Rights Watch interview with T.R., 56-year-old evictee from Talatona, August 7, 2006.
91 Human Rights Watch Interview with P.Q., 47-year-old evictee from Mbondo Chape, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about incidents on July 2006.
92 National Directorate for Criminal Investigation (Direccao Nacional de Investigacao Criminal, DNIC).
93 Human Rights Watch interview with N.H., 49-year-old small farmer in Bem-Vindo since 1983, Luanda, August 8, 2006 about incidents in 2006.
94 Lei de Bases do Ambiente, arts. 15 and 16.
95 The municipal authorities alleged that this private individual owned the land currently known as Bairro da Cidadania (or Km 25). The evictees never saw the individual or copies of the alleged property documents. Human Rights Watch had access to two letters from the municipality of Viana, one addressed to the Residents Association from Bairro da Cidadania dated March 24, 2006, and the other addressed to a local individual resident dated April 18, 2006. The first informed local residents that the company Bauherr (no further details on the company included in the letter) was authorized to fence the land which, according to the letter, belonged to this private individual. The second letter is a notification giving resident N.W. 48 hours to vacate the area, which stated that the area was reserved by the state for industrial development. This means residents were given two different reasons, at different times, for their eviction. None of the documents provided full details of the laws and articles of the laws that were the legal basis for the eviction.
96 Human Rights Watch interview with K.M., 44-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006.
97 UN Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, Miloon Kothari, E/CN.4/2006/41, 14 March 2006, para. 56.j.
98 Normas do Procedimento, art. 41. The draft implementing regulation to the land law, which was not in force at the time of writing but had been finally approved by the government, and to which Human Rights Watch had access, states that in case of expropriation for public use ends the government must notify individuals at least six months in advance (art. 132).
99 Human Rights Watch interview with P.M., 37-year-old female evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006.
100 Human Rights Watch interview with T.U., 25-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about how his house was destroyed several times between 1998 and 2005.
101 SOS Habitat public note, dated February 6, 2006, addressed to the president of the National Assembly, Luandas provincial governor, the municipal administrator of Kilamba Kiaxi, among others (on file with Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat).
102 Human Rights Watch interview with M.L., 20-year-old evictee from Boavista, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about one eviction operation in July 21, 2004.
103 Note from the Viana Municipal Administration, dated April 18, 2006, addressed to P.N., resident of Bairro da Cidadania (copy on file with Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat). Proper reference of the law mentioned in the notice would require at least the exact date of the law and the articles on which the notice is based.
104 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7, para. 13.
105 Lei da Terra, art. 12(3).
106 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Z.B., Angolan land expert who requested anonymity, February 1, 2007.
107 Human Rights Watch interview with G.T., 54-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about the several eviction operation that occurred in this area, the last of which in May 5, 2006. G.T. paid for his land plot and subsequently had his house demolished twice.
108 Human Rights Watch interview with H.T., 40-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006 referring to several eviction operations in this area.
109 Human Rights Watch interview with B.A., 33-year-old evictee from Onga relocated to Fubu, Luanda, August 4, 2006.
110 Human Rights Watch interview with B.X., 30-year-old female evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006 about evictions in 2002 when her sister lived in the area. B.X. moved to the area with her family in 2005 and also had her house destroyed in evictions in March and June that year.
111 Human Rights Watch interview with C.T., 33-year-old evictee from Onga relocated to Fubu, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about incidents in 2003.
112 Human Rights Watch interview with P.U., 48-year-old female evictee from Mbondo Chape, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about provision of compensation in 2006. P.U. occupied her land in Mbondo Chape since 1975.
113 Human Rights Watch interview with V.V., 85 years old, N.H, 49 years old, J.L., 64 years old, and D.F, 44 years old, evictees from Bem-Vindo, Luanda, August 8, 2006.
114 Human Rights Watch interview with V.V., 85 years old, N.H, 49 years old, J.L., 64 years old, and D.F, 44 years old, evictees from Bem-Vindo, Luanda, August 8, 2006 about the situation regrading compensation as of 2006.
115 According to research by Development Workshop and data from the Ministry of Urban Planning and Environment, the real estate property market in Luanda is mostly informal. In the formal market people can only obtain land from three housing cooperatives and the Urban Development Company Lt. (Empresa de Desenvolvimento Urbano Lda., EDURB, which manages the development in a vast area in the south of Luanda). All grant rights over land given to them in concession by the state. Formal market value in the south of Luanda, according to a proposal by EDURB to which Human Rights Watch had access, is 45USD per square meter. This amount was also confirmed by information from residents of Talatona who received an offer to purchase the land they were already occupying to avoid being removed from there, and of a researcher of a Luanda-based organization working on land issues who requested anonymity.
116 Human Rights Watch interview with E.Q., 36-year-old evictee from Onga relocated to Fubu, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about events in Onga in 2003.
117 Human Rights Watch interview with R.V., 46-year-old small farmer from Mbondo Chape, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about incidents in July 2006.
118 Human Rights Watch interview with N.H., 49-year-old evictee from Bem-Vindo, Luanda, August 8, 2006.
119 Human Rights Watch interview with K.O., 43-year-old evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 27, 2006. K.O. paid for the regularization of his land in 2004 to local administration officials but had his house demolished in November 2005.
120 Credential from the Ministry of Public Works, Project Nova Vida, dated April 18, 2006, and signed by the Director of the project (copy on file with Human Rights Watch and SOS Habitat).
121 SOS Habitat Situation Memo on the Bem-Vindo case, dated October 13, 2005.
122 Fubu is the name by which a relocation area within the broader area of Mbonde Chape is known to local residents.
123 Human Rights Watch also visited Fubu but conducted no interviews in this site.
124 Human Rights Watch interview with E.Q., 36-year-old evictee from Onga, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about events in 2003.
125 Human Rights Watch interview with C.T., 33-year-old evictee from Onga, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about her relocation to Panguila.
126 Human Rights Watch interview with L.F., evictee from Boavista relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about the situation in 2006.
127 Human Rights Watch interview with B.V. and M.L., female evictees from Boavista relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about events in 2004.
128 Human Rights Watch interview with P.E., 50-year-old female evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006. P.E. paid for her land to local government officials in 2004 but her house was demolished in May 5, 2006.
129 According to data from the Ministry on Urban Planning and Environment, between 1993 and 2005 the government constructed 6,000 social houses (houses constructed for resettlement purposes) in Zangu, 3,000 in Panguila, 1,000 in Sapu and 102 in Camama. Most of Zangu was assigned to families evicted from Boavista (an estimated 4,000 families in 2001 and many others - no accurate estimate exists - between 2002 to 2006). The rest of the houses were assigned to evictees from several smaller scale evictions, including evictees from Onga (approximately 300 evictee families) and Benfica (approximately 470 families). However, the government data does not indicate how many of these houses were actually awarded as compensation to evictees from other areas of Luanda, especially the areas researched in this report. It also does not provide information about any consultation process with the affected communities regarding their relocation to these places or how many evictees were not resettled there and why. Human Rights Watch interview with Minister for Urban Planning and Environment Sita Jose, Luanda, August 10, 2006.
130 Human Rights Watch interview with K.A., R.J. and R.R., evictees from Cambamba I, Luanda, August 10, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with H.J., evictee from Cambamba II, Luanda, July 27, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with I.O., evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with F.A., evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with H.Y., evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with U.T., evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006.
131 Human Rights Watch interview with H.Y., 24-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, August 4, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with B.X., evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with O.A., 48 years old, T.U., 76 years old, D.O., 67 years old, S.P., 36 years old, M.G., 45 years old, and M.A., 42 years old, evictees from Gaiolas, Luanda, August 7, 2006.
132 Human Rights Watch interview with T.R., 56-year-old male evictee from Talatona, Luanda, August 7, 2006.
133 Human Rights Watch interview with B.A., 33-year-old female evictee from Fubu, August 4, 2006. Also Human Rights Watch interview with O.A., 48 years old, T.U., 76 years old, D.O., 67 years old, S.P., 36 years old, M.G., 45 years old, and M.A., 42 years old, evictees from Gaiolas, Luanda, August 7, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with A.M., 40-year-old male evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006.
134 Human Rights Watch interview with P.P., evictee, resident in Cambamba I since 1947, Luanda, April 10, 2006.
135 Human Rights Watch interview with P.M., 37-year-old female evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006 about an incident in June 2005.
136 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7, para. 16.
137 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 7, para.16.
138 Human Rights Watch interview with S.J., 33-year-old evictee from Onga, Luanda, August 4, 2006.
139 Human Rights Watch interview with H.G., 85-year-old farmer who cultivated land in Bem-Vindo since 1954 and had his land appropriated in 2005, Luanda, April 10, 2006.
140 Human Rights Watch group interview in the Cambambas, April 2006 about the situation of evictees immediately following the March 13, 2006 eviction.
141 Human Rights Watch interview with E.E., 36-year-old evictee from Onga, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about the situation in 2006.
142 Human Rights Watch interview with V.X., 47-year-old female evictee from Benfica, Luanda, August 5, 2006. V.X was among the first evictees to be relocated to Panguila in March 18, 2003.
143 Fubu is an exception as it is also in the southern part of Luanda.
144 Human Rights Watch interview with L.H., 30-year-old female evictee from Benfica, Luanda, August 7, 2006 about the transport situation in Panguila, where she was relocated after her house was demolished during evictions in 2003.
145 Human Rights Watch interview with K.T., 39-year-old male evictee from Benfica relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 7, 2006. Public transportation in Luanda is essentially ensured by small vans named after their drivers as candongueiros.
146 Human Rights Watch interview with B.V. and M.L., 25 and 20-year-old female evictees from Boavista relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about the situation in their current residence area, after eviction on May 21, 2004.
147 Human Rights Watch interview with G.H., 17-year-old evictee from Benfica relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 5, 2006. G.H. resided in Benfica since 2001 but that land had been in her family for many years.
148 Human Rights Watch researchers and SOS Habitat staff persons visited this site on August 4, 2006.
149 The UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing has expressed deep concern with the effects of forced evictions on some groups: [f]orced evictions intensify inequality, social conflict, segregation and ghettoization, and invariably affect the poorest, most socially and economically vulnerable and marginalized sectors of society, especially women, children [ ]. (UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement, E/CN.4/2006/41, p. 15, para. 7). The disproportionate impact on women of forced relocation and forced evictions was also acknowledged by the UN Commission on Human Rights, which urged governments to address this issue (UN Commission on Human Rights, Womens equal ownership, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, E/CN.4/RES/2005/25).
150 Human Rights Watch interview with T.A., 29-year-old evictee from Onga relocated to Fubu, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about the situation in the relocation site in 2006.
151 Human Rights Watch interview with L.F., 47-year-old female evictee from Boavista relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about incidents on May 21, 2004.
152 Human Rights Watch interview with L.F., 47-year-old evictee from Boavista, Luanda, August 5, 2006 about events on May 21, 2004.
153 Human Rights Watch interview with T.A., evictee from Onga, Luanda, August 4, 2006.
154 Human Rights Watch interview with S.J., 33-year-old evictee from Onga relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about the conditions in the relocation site in 2006.
155 Human Rights Watch interview with M.L., 20-year-old evictee from Boavista relocated to Panguila, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about the situation in the relocation site in 2006.
156 Human Rights Watch Interview with L.B., evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, December 9, 2006.
157 Human Rights Watch Interview with W.R, evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, December 9, 2006 about the difficulties for her children attending school following the evictions in this area in 2004 and 2005.
158 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 4, para. 8, a.
159 Land tenure is the mode by which land is held or owned, or the set of relationships among people concerning the use of land. See Geoffrey Payne, Urban Land Tenure and Property Rights in Developing Countries (London: Intermediate Technology Publications: Overseas Development Administration, 1997), p.3. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights have interpreted secure tenure to be a legal entitlement arising from the right to adequate housing (see for example UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comments 4 and 7; UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolutions 2004/28 and 1993/77; and African Commission on Human and People's Rights, Communication 155/96 (2001)). Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private), accommodation, cooperative housing, lease, owner-occupation, emergency housing and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property, UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 4, para. 8(a).
160 Jose Armando Morais Guerra, Temas de Direito Fundiario e de Direito do Ordenamento do Territorio (Lisboa: Edicao propria do autor, 2002), p. 104.
161 The 1975 Constitutional Law established a socialist regime with collective property of all means of production, including land. Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Z.B., Angolan land expert who requested anonymity, February 1, 2007.
162 Surface or possession rights are regulated by the 1966 civil code which remained in force after independence and to this date, although several of its provisions have meanwhile been revised by other laws.
163 This is the procedure in the civil code called usocapiao. Although under the 2004 land law land rights can no longer be acquired through usocapiao, the law has no retroactive effect, so rights acquired in this manner before it came into force must be respected.
164 Lei Constitucional de Angola, Lei n. 23/92, September 16, 1992, art. 12.
165 The 1992 land law (Lei sobre a Concessao e Titularidade do Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra, lei n. 21-C/92, August 28, 1992) was the only legal instrument which attempted to define the meaning of original property of the state in its preamble but this law is no longer in force. Angolan lawyers and land law experts diverge on the interpretation of this term. Some believe it means that all land in Angola belongs to the government, which does not need to issue any specific document to assert its right to use specific pieces of land for its public interest projects; others think that state means the Angolan people as a whole, so the government needs to issue specific decree claiming specific land for its use. However, all experts interviewed by Human Rights Watch agree that, independently of having to issue a specific regulation claiming the land for its use, when the government wants to develop specific projects in a specific area it must follow procedure and the intended use of the land must be widely announced to the residents. Human Rights Watch interviews with Z.B., Angolan land expert who requested anonymity, Luanda, April and December 2006 and February 2007; Human Rights Watch interview with David Mendes, Angolan lawyer, Luanda December 5, 2006.
166 1992 land law (lei n. 21-C/92), art. 30(1).
167 Lei da Terra. This law sets forth the legal regime for the succession, constitution, exercise and extinction of land rights.
168 Lei do Ordenamento do Territorio. This law defines the policy and planning instruments for the management of the Angolan territory.
169 The implementing regulation to the law on territorial management was published in January 23, 2006 and the regulation to the land law has been approved by the government but was still pending publication in the official gazette by the time this report went to print.
170 Regulamento dos Planos Urbanisticos, art. 98. The regulation calls for the approval of further regulations on the rehabilitation of areas that were initially illegal; demolition and restrictions to demolition of buildings; expropriations for implementation of public interest projects; evictions for rehabilitation of damaged buildings; and relocation operations.
171 It is important to note that the concession and exercise of the rights set forth in the land law should be done in accordance with the aims and objectives of such plans. See Lei da Terra, art. 15.
172 Human Rights Watch interview with J.T., 53-year-old male evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006. J.T.s house was demolished during eviction in this area in September and October 2004. After the evictions, in 2005, he obtained a construction license for the same area from the local administration.
173 Regularization requests in Luanda are the responsibility of the provincial government but the concession of rural land (which comprised much of the areas surrounding Luanda where informal urban areas developed) is the responsibility of the state Ministry of Agriculture. Municipal administrations have no competence for land concessions but in practice granted such concessions throughout the war period. When a regularization request is submitted, government officials must locate and visit the land plot in question to verify current occupation. Then they must consult the land registry to verify if there is any prior registration of the same land plot. If this is the case the government must make a public announcement in the official journal to verify if the prior registered owner has abandoned the plot or still has a valid legal claim to it. Once this is clarified, there is a technical evaluation of the project in light of urban management and construction policies. If the project is approved the individual requiring regularization is granted a provisional title for two years. Development Workshop and the Centre for Environment & Human Settlement, Terra, p. 139.
174 Development Workshop, Terra, p. 59.
176 Human Rights Watch interview with Z.B., Angolan land expert who requested anonymity, Luanda, August 1, 2006.
177 Human Rights Watch interview with Sita Jose, minister for urban planning and environment, Luanda, August 10, 2006.
178 Human Rights Watch interview with Minister Sita Jose, Luanda, August 10, 2006.
179 Human Rights Watch interview with L.O., 44-year-old evictee from Banga We, Luanda, July 29, 2006.
180 Human Rights Watch interview with Q.U., 41-year-old male evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about difficulties obtaining registration titlesby August 2006 he had not receive a reply to his request submitted to the local administration in 2000.
181 Human Rights Watch interview with P.R., 47-year-old evictee from Benfica relocated to Panguila, August 5, 2006, and Human Rights Watch interview with K.T., 39-year-old evictee from Benfica relocated to Panguila, August 7, 2006, both about the situation with security of tenure in Panguila, where the government relocated them to after forced evictions from Benfica in March 2003.
182 Human Rights Watch interview with I.F, 62-year-old evictee from Fubu (Mbondo Chape) relocated within the same area, Luanda, August 4, 2006. Fubu is a vast area and some people have been evicted there for the relocation of evictees from other areas of the city.
183 Lei da Terra, art. 84. Under the land law this three-year period starts from the publication of its implementing regulation, which provides for details of how individuals should proceed to regularize their land. According to the law, the government should have approved its implementing regulation(s) within six months from the entry into force of the law in February 7, 2005 (Lei da Terra, art. 85). When this report went to print the regulation had been approved by the government (Human Rights Watch had access to the draft approved by the Council of Ministers) but was still pending publication in the official gazette.
184 Lei da Terra, art. 84; Codigo Civil, art. 1276.
185 Lei da Terra, art. 84; Codigo Civil, arts. 1276 and 336. According to article 336 forcible means can be legitimately used (a) when, because of lack of time to resort to usual coercive means, direct action is indispensable to avoid nullification of the right; and (b) as long as the agent does not exceed what is necessary to avoid damage to that right.
186 Human Rights Watch interview with Z.A., Director of a Luanda-based organization working on urban and rural land in Angola who requested anonymity, Luanda, April 6, 2006.
187 See section on background.
188 Human Rights Watch interview with P.M., 32-year-old evictee from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with M.U., 40-year-old male evictee from CambambaII, Luanda, July 29, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with P.K., 42-year-old evictees from Soba Kopassa, Luanda, August 2, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with K.A., R.J. and R.R., evictees from Cambamba I, Luanda, August 10, 2006. According to local organizations interviewed by Human Rights Watch in April 2006, many low income families and IDPs who acquired land/housing in the informal market were unaware of the legal provisions concerning land registration and assumed payment to previous residents or farmers automatically gave them legal title to the land/housing they were purchasing. Human Rights Watch interviewed 29 evictees from Benfica, Bairro da Cidadania, Wengi Maka, Cambamba I and II, Maria Eugenia Neto, Mbondo Chape/Fubu, Cacuaco, Bem-Vindo, Sapu, Munlevos, Gaiolas, and Talatona, who told us they had old documents recognizing their settlement or that of their ancestors in the areas they were evicted from.
189 Human Rights Watch interview with F.F., 41-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006 about incidents in 2002 that caused false perception of security of tenure.
190 Human Rights Watch interview with P.E., 50-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with M.H., 50-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with J.T., 53-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with G.T., 54-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006. Luandas provincial government has acknowledged that there have been cases of illegal sale of land by municipal officials acting beyond their power and even launched an investigation about this in the municipality of Kilamba Kiaxi, Samba, and Viana (see following section on national and international reactions to forced evictions in Luanda, below).
191 Human Rights Watch interview with R.J., 66-year-old evictee from Cambamba I, Luanda, August 10, 2006 about events in 2005 and 2006.
192 Human Rights Watch interview with R.V., 47-year-old female evictee from Mbondo Chape, Luanda, August 1, 2006. It is difficult to access laws in Angola. Although they are published in the official government journal these are not widely accessible to the population and even local and international organizations often have difficulties in obtaining the text of laws. It is also the case that a long time can elapse between the approval of the law or decree by the parliament or the government and its publishing in the official gazette. Additionally, most evictees interviewed by Human Rights Watch have a low level of formal education.
193 Human Rights Watch interview with R.V., 47-year-old evictee from Mbondo Chape, Luanda, August 1, 2006 about her situation in 2006 regarding land registration.
194 Human Rights Watch interview with K.M. and L.L., evictees from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with G.T., 54-year-old evictee from Bairro da Cidadania, Luanda, August 1, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with S.S., 47-year-old evictee from Wengi Maka, Luanda, August 8, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with W.R., 37-year-old evictees from Cambamba I, Luanda, July 30, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with H.T., 40-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with T.C., 48-year-old evictee from Maria Eugenia Neto, Luanda, August 4, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with V.E., 45-year-old evictee from Munlevos, Luanda, August 1, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with R.E., 48-year-old evictee from Talatona, Luanda, August 7, 2006.
195 Normas do Procedimento, art. 57.
196 Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Rafael Morais, SOS Habitat staff member, June 12, 2006.