A/HRC/40/61 interest and expertise in systemic issues being addressed should be provided with amicus or public interest standing in hearings and be permitted to participate in the implementation of remedies. Principle 4 – Denying access to justice cannot be justified on the basis that the right to housing is not considered justiciable within the State’s domestic legal order. 16. Denying access to justice for the right to housing places the State in non-compliance with its obligations to ensure effective remedies for all fundamental human rights. This cannot be justified on the basis that the right to housing or any of its components is not considered justiciable within the domestic legal order, as this would be contrary to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 14 Domestic courts must therefore reject any submissions that a claim to the right to housing should not be heard by courts if no alternative independent body is available to hear the claim. Governments should desist from making these arguments before courts or international human rights bodies. Principle 5 – Access to justice must apply to both negative and positive State obligations, including obligations to progressively realize the right to housing. 17. There must be access to justice for positive rights claims engaging resource allocation, such as for rental assistance or “housing first” programmes, as well as negative rights claims challenging State action resulting in deprivation of the right to housing, such as forced eviction or home demolition. Any distinction between the two categories of rights with respect to access to justice “is incompatible with the principle that the two sets of human rights are indivisible and interdependent”. Moreover, it would “drastically curtail the capacity of the courts to protect the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in society”.15 Principle 6 – States may delegate components of access to justice for the right to housing to administrative bodies, but judicial remedies must be available when needed. 18. The right to an effective remedy does not always require a judicial remedy. Administrative and other forms of remedies that ensure compliance with the right to housing may be adequate as long as they are “accessible, affordable, timely and effective”.16 Many States rely on administrative tribunals for remedies for protections of tenants’ rights, health and safety or land title. Alternative forms of remedy, however, should generally be reinforced and complemented by judicial remedies. Whenever the right to housing “cannot be made fully effective without some role for the judiciary, judicial remedies are necessary”.17 Principle 7 – Courts must interpret and apply domestic law in accordance with the State’s obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to housing. 19. The role played by courts and administrative decision makers is one of the most important factors determining State compliance with the right to housing. Courts are not simply neutral arbiters of rights claims; they are also the guardians of rights.18 Jointly with other branches of Government, they are bound by the State’s obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to housing. 19 The judiciary must, therefore, exercise its authority to interpret and apply domestic law in a manner that promotes the realization of the right to housing and ensures effective remedies for this right. 20 “Neglect by the courts of this 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 6 “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 9 (1998) on the domestic application of the Covenant, para. 10. Ibid., para. 9. Ibid. See Human Rights Council resolutions 29/6 and 31/2. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 4. General comment No. 9, para. 15.