A/HRC/22/46 protection? How should tenants‘ rights be balanced with the rights of property owners? 44 What are the limits within which tenants‘ rights or the rights of holders of other forms of tenure can be ensured? E. Non-discrimination and security of tenure 62. International human rights mechanisms have discussed the particular tenure situation of some groups and individuals, such as Roma or women, but have offered little guidance with respect to other groups. 45 For instance, commentary in relation to the situation of internally displaced persons (IDPs) focuses only on a few issues (primarily housing or property restitution) and countries,46 and would thus warrant further elaboration. Other groups whose tenure needs require clarification are asylum seekers and migrants. 63. While non-discrimination is relevant to all groups and individuals, and all grounds of non-discrimination are potentially relevant to tenure security, the Special Rapporteur focuses here on issues of non-discrimination on account of property status, location and socioeconomic status, which are less often discussed in the human rights framework. 64. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stressed that discrimination on the grounds of property status or place of residence is prohibited under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Property status includes those holding real property (for example land ownership or tenure) and those who lack it. The Committee further clarified that the exercise of Covenant rights, such as access to water or protection from forced eviction, should not be conditional on, or determined by, a person‘s current or former place of residence, or land tenure status, such as living in an informal settlement.47 Furthermore, the Committee has noted that States parties must give due priority to those social groups living in unfavourable conditions by giving them particular consideration.48 65. An examination of national legislation and case law reveals that different forms of security of tenure provide varying degrees of security, and that the variation is often a function of the property interests associated with each type of tenure as well as of socioeconomic status. For instance, those in informal settlements have minimal protections against eviction, while those with freehold tenure secured by title deeds are able to avail themselves of a far higher degree of protection. Furthermore, as United States expropriation case law demonstrates, even within an overall regime providing security of tenure, those with less economic status tend to enjoy a lesser degree of security of tenure in practice.49 44 45 46 47 48 49 14 See, for example, Constitutional Court of South Africa, Maphango and others v. Aengus Lifestyle Properties, case CCT 57/11, [2012] ZACC 2, decision adopted on 13 March 2012. On Roma, see concluding observations cited in note 30. On women, see for example concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on Côte d‘Ivoire (CEDAW/C/CIV/CO/1-3), para. 42; Nepal (CEDAW/C/NPL/CO/4-5), paras. 11, 15-16, 43-44; Zimbabwe (CEDAW/C/ZMB/CO/5-6), paras. 35-38; and Ethiopia (CEDAW/C/ETH/CO/6-7), paras. 36-37, 40-41. See, for example, concluding observations of United Nations treaty bodies on Bosnia and Herzegovina (E/C.12/BIH/CO/1) and Croatia (CERD/C/HRV/CO/8 and CCPR/C/HRV/CO/2); as well as A/HRC/16/43/Add.1. See also the principles on housing and property restitution for refugees and displaced persons (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/17, annex). General comment No. 20 (2009) on non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, paras. 25 and 34. See also general comment No. 15 (2003) on the right to water and general comment No. 4. General comment No. 4, para. 11. The Supreme Court of the United States found that expropriating low-cost owner-occupied housing to make way for private redevelopment was in the public interest as that development would create jobs