A/HRC/22/46 66. The issue of non-discrimination on account of property or socioeconomic status is evidently complex. While the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has explicitly prohibited such discrimination, the precise modalities of addressing these aspects of non-discrimination are unclear. How can States ensure that all members of society, regardless of economic status or type of tenure arrangement, enjoy security of tenure on the basis of non-discrimination and equal protection of the law? This has massive implications for inhabitants of informal settlements. F. General remarks 67. The foregoing analysis demonstrates that a number of issues require further clarification under international human rights law. Treaty bodies, starting with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have a particularly important role to play in efforts to provide more precise and comprehensive guidance with respect to security of tenure. National courts, aided by the use of strategic litigation, could provide another avenue to clarify aspects of security of tenure beyond preventing or seeking redress for forced evictions. 68. At a more fundamental level, the above issues may require a paradigm shift away from correlating security of tenure with a property rights regime and towards the grounding of security of tenure solidly in the human rights framework. Related to this is the need to protect the right to adequate housing when it comes into conflict with the right to property. For instance, in the case of Modder East Squatters and Another v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, involving an informal settlement located on private land, the Supreme Court of South Africa reconciled this conflict of law by ordering the State authorities to compensate the owner of the land for the costs associated with its occupation by the informal settlement until such time as the State authorities could provide alternative land for the residents of that settlement, thereby recognizing the rights of the community to adequate housing and to protection against illegal eviction.50 Modderklip demonstrates how individual property rights can interfere with, rather than enhance, tenure rights of others. It also demonstrates how such a conflict of rights can be reconciled. Such conflicts also take place between the rights of landlords and those of tenants.51 69. Finally, while the full elaboration of the scope of ―security of tenure‖ as recognized in the framework of international human rights law presents a range of challenges that have yet to be adequately met, the Special Rapporteur nonetheless underscores that security of tenure should be understood as encompassing, at a minimum: (a) legal protection from forced eviction, harassment or other threats; (b) recognition—legally, by authorities, but also by private actors—of the right to live in a secure place in peace and dignity; this recognition includes receiving support from authorities and equal access to and availability of all public services; (c) justiciability—in other words, security of tenure must be enforceable; to make this criterion truly effective may require the provision of legal aid to facilitate access to effective remedies; and (d) any other aspect required as a step towards 50 51 and pay higher real estate taxes. Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al., opinion delivered on 23 June 2005. See Supreme Court of Appeals of South Africa, Modder East Squatters and Another v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, case Nos. 187/03 and 213/03, judgement of 27 May 2004; upheld in Constitutional Court of South Africa, The President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd, case No. CCT20/04, judgement of 13 May 2005. See, for example, Maphango and others v. Aengus Lifestyle Properties. 15