A/HRC/22/46 B. Obligation to confer legal security of tenure 47. In its general comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights identified ―legal security of tenure‖ as one of seven elements of the right to adequate housing (para. 8 (a)). The Committee stressed that ―notwithstanding the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. States parties should consequently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups‖ (ibid.). 48. From this observation and the authoritative guidance of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other United Nations human rights mechanisms, it appears that security of tenure must be ―legal‖ or protected by law. Systematic reference can be found as to the provision of ―adequate housing with legal security of tenure‖, and to the importance of adopting adequate laws and regulations in this respect.29 49. The obligation to confer legal tenure security is due to everyone, irrespective of the type of tenure held. The question then arises as to what precisely the State obligations are under that general injunction. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights notes that States should take immediate measures aimed at conferring security of tenure (see para. 49 above). This language, on its face, articulates an immediate obligation to ensure a minimum degree of tenure security to all (to prevent forced evictions). 50. States are also called upon to confer security of tenure to all those who lack it. This seems to imply that one focus of State action should be on the most disadvantaged and insecure. An examination of the authoritive guidance of United Nations mechanisms confirms that States must secure tenure particularly for the most disadvantaged and marginalized, such as low-income groups, informal settlers, and minorities. 30 51. National and regional case law offers similar guidance. For instance, the Supreme Court of India has called upon the State to provide some security of tenure to marginalized groups, such as pavement dwellers, and the South African Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights have addressed security of tenure and protection against eviction for the urban poor and inhabitants of informal settlements.31 52. The above questions, as well as others discussed in subsections C and D of the present section, could be discussed with respect to a number of situations, individuals and groups. One such group is inhabitants of informal settlements. Guidance so far has focused on protection against forced evictions. More broadly, what should States do to ensure that all inhabitants of informal settlements enjoy security of tenure, irrespective of their legal status under national law? What types of minimum measures, as well as measures of 29 30 31 See, for example, the concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Trinidad and Tobago (E/C.12/1/ADD.80), para. 51; Ukraine (E/C.12/UKR/CO/5), para. 47; and Serbia and Montenegro (E/C.12/1/ADD.108), para. 57. See, for example, the concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Nicaragua (E/C.12/NIC/CO/4), para. 25; Dominican Republic (E/C.12/DOM/CO/3), para. 27; Philippines (E/C.12/PHL/CO/4), para. 29; Ukraine (E/C.12/UKR/CO/5), paras. 47-48; the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (E/C.12/MKD/CO/1), paras. 41-44; and Serbia and Montenegro (E/C.12/1/ADD.108), para. 57. See Kate Tissington, A Resource Guide to Housing in South Africa 1994-2010: Legislation, Policy, Programmes and Practice (Socio-economic Rights Institute of South Africa, 2011); and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Yordanova and others v. Bulgaria, application No. 25446/06, judgment adopted on 3 April 2012. 11