A/HRC/22/46 progressive realization, should States take? Is there an obligation to give legal recognition to such settlements, and if so what are the implications for rights of tenure? Should any distinction be made under international human rights law as to whether these settlers are on public or private land (a distinction that is often accorded central importance in national law32)? And should the threshold of protection be higher in situations of long-established communities and historic acquiescence of the authorities to their presence? 33 C. Protection against forced eviction 53. As noted above, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stressed that all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. The Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1993/77 (para. 3), similarly urged Governments to confer legal security of tenure on all persons currently threatened with forced eviction. 54. There is no doubt that forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of a wide range of internationally recognized human rights. 34 Providing protection against such practices is thus a core function of security of tenure. Forced evictions have been addressed by human rights mechanisms and courts at all levels in considerable detail. Extensive guidance is available as to the prohibition of forced eviction and the strict procedural safeguards that must be followed in situations in which evictions are carried out, including meaningful consultation with affected communities. 35 55. Legislation against forced evictions is considered essential to a system of effective protection. According to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, such legislation should include measures which (a) provide the greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land, (b) conform to the Covenant and (c) are designed to control strictly the circumstances under which evictions may be carried out. 36 A number of countries have adopted legislation aimed at preventing forced evictions.37 56. Questions remain as to what types of measures should be taken to ―provide the greatest possible security of tenure‖ to occupiers of houses and land. No explanation is given as to what could qualify as greatest possible security of tenure, or how this should be determined bearing in mind the diversity of national contexts. For instance, should principles of reasonableness38 and proportionality be used to ascertain what level of security of tenure is appropriate in a given context? This question of a threshold of security of tenure has also attracted little attention from regional and national mechanisms and courts. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 12 This question should be explored against the complexity of intervening on private land in a context where national law guarantees the protection of private property. ECHR found that States have higher obligations of protection in such cases (Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, para. 121). See similar reasoning in Human Rights Committee, communication No. 2073/2011, Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria, Views adopted on 30 October 2012, paras. 14.6-14.7. Resolutions 1993/77 and 2004/28 of the Commission on Human Rights. See, for example, Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights general comment No. 7 (1997); and the basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement (A/HRC/4/18, annex I). See also jurisprudence by South Africa Constitutional Court, in Tissington, A Resource Guide. General comment No. 7, para. 9. See, for example, the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998 (South Africa), and the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (Philippines). Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 8, para. 4.