A/72/128 62. The most substantive remedies with respect to the right to adequate housing of persons with disabilities have tended to emerge from claims relating to deinstitutionalization and forced evictions. In the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Olmstead v. L.C., 56 the Court recognized that States had an obligation, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, to take reasonable measures to ensure that persons with psychosocial disabilities were able to live outside institutions in the least restrictive environment, with a waiting list for services that moved at a “reasonable” pace. The federal Government, through the Department of Housing Urban Development, has provided guidelines and support to states to encourage the implementation of the decision. In another case under the Act, an appeals court ordered a private landlord to be flexible with respect to employment and income qualifications for rental housing, recognizing their exclusionary effect on persons with disabilities. 57 63. In Purohit and Moore v. the Gambia, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights considered a case of forcible institutionalization without due process in the Gambia. The Commission not only found that the legislation itself violated provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but also took note of the obligation to progressively realize the right to health by addressing violations of socioeconomic rights. The Commission stated that, throughout Africa, poverty rendered persons “incapable to provide the necessary amenities, infrastructure and resources that facilitate the full enjoyment of [the right to health]” and read into the right to health the obligation of States parties to the African Charter “to take concrete and targeted steps, while taking full advantage of its available resources, to ensure that the right to health is fully realized in all its aspects without discrimination of any kind”. 58 64. Through a number of cases, South African courts have played a leading role in establishing that, in order to meet a test of being “just and equitable”, evictions must not be permitted to render persons homeless, with particular attention to person with disabilities. 59 65. In India, the High Court of Bombay has applied the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act to require increased allocations of land (tenements) to persons with disabilities. 60 In a similar vein, the Supreme Court of Argentina, in a case involving a homeless mother and her son with a disability, stated that there should be a minimum guarantee of access to housing for those facing situations of vulnerability because of disability and ordered the immediate provision of shelter. 61 66. In a decision adopted in 2008, the Supreme Court of Nepal ordered the release of all persons who were imprisoned because of psychosocial disabilities, in keeping with the right to equality, health and a dignified life. The Court directed the __________________ 56 57 58 59 60 61 18/23 Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). See Giebeler v. M & B Associates, 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2003). Purohit and Moore v. the Gambia, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, communication No. 241/2001 (2003), para. 84. See Pitje v. Shibambo and Others (case No. CCT144/15) [2016] ZACC 5; 2016 (4) BCLR 460 (CC), available from www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2016/5.html; Arendse v. Arendse and Others (case No. 12659/2009) [2012] ZAWCHC 156; [2012] 4 All SA 305 (WCC), availa ble from www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2012/156.html. See India Centre for Human Rights and Law and Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Bapu Trust for Research on Mind and Discourse, 905-pil-44-09 (2009). See Supreme Court of Argentina, Q.C., S.Y. c/ GCBA s/ amparo (Q.C., S.Y. v. Government of the City of Buenos Aires, petition for amparo), 24 April 2012. See Public Defence Service of Buenos Aires, “Economic, social and cultural rights in the city of Buenos Aires ”, October 2015, pp. 64-67. 17-11724