A/HRC/40/61 affected groups have been afforded genuine participation. All legal protections of the right to housing, and access to justice to ensure compliance, must remain in place. 29 29. The critical link between individual claims and progressive realization of the right to housing has been elucidated in the jurisprudence of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under the Optional Protocol. In the case of Ben Djazia and Bellili v. Spain, the Committee assessed measures taken by the State party in light of the circumstances of a family who became homeless after an eviction. The reasonableness standard was formulated as requiring the State to make “all possible effort, using all available resources, to realize, as a matter of urgency, the right to housing of persons who, like the authors, are in a situation of dire need”. 30 This necessitated attention to both individual circumstances and structural factors.31 As remedy, the State party was required to engage in genuine consultation with the family to ensure that they were afforded adequate accommodation and to develop a comprehensive plan with the necessary resources, indicators, time frames and evaluation criteria for the progressive realization of the right to housing for low-income persons.32 B. Application in domestic law 30. The right to housing should be implemented in domestic law so as to include obligations of progressive realization. The 2010 Constitution of Kenya provides a helpful model, requiring the State to take “legislative, policy and other measures” for progressive realization of the right to housing, and setting out principles for the assessment of whether resource allocation and policy choices are in line with article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol.33 31. In many Latin American countries, the amparo procedure can provide remedies for the right to housing, including for violations linked to progressive realization. 34 For example, in a case brought by a woman and her son living in homelessness, a court in Argentina required the Government to implement a plan to eliminate homelessness, with a timetable for the implementation, the participation of those affected and the allocation of the maximum available resource.35 32. Indian courts have recognized that a constitutional obligation of progressive realization of the right to housing may be inferred from the guarantee of the right to life. 36 This interpretive approach is consistent with the Human Rights Committee’s recently adopted general comment on the right to life, which recognized that the right to life requires “appropriate measures” to address “general conditions in society [such as] homelessness” in order to ensure the conditions necessary for a dignified life. 37 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 E/C.12/2016/1, para. 4. E/C.12/61/D/5/2015, para. 17.5. Ibid., para. 17.2. Ibid., para. 21 (d). Constitution of Kenya, art. 21 (2); see, however, Court of Appeal, Kenya Airports Authority v. MituBell Welfare Society and others, civil appeal No. 218, Judgment of 11 April 2013, in which the Court invokes the “political questions” doctrine to limit the protection of the right to alternative housing for an evicted community. Supreme Court of Argentina, Q.C., S.Y. c. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, petition for amparo, Judgment of 24 April 2012; Constitutional Court of Ecuador, case No. 1207-10-EP, Judgment of 17 April 2012; and Colombian Constitutional Court, decision No. T-025/04, 17 June 2004. Cámara de Apelaciones en lo Contencioso Administrativo y Tributario de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Ramallo, Beatriz y otros c. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Judgment of 12 March 2002. Supreme Court of India, People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and Others, No. 196 of 2001, Judgment of 30 November 2001; and Bombay High Court, Shivaji Krishna Zunjare v. State of Maharashtra and Others, Judgment of 23 July 2004, para. 6. General comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 26. 9