A/HRC/27/55 violations, applying the categories of human rights obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to water. While the Committee has not yet adopted a general comment on the right to sanitation, it has issued a formal statement recognizing that similar obligations apply, 6 following an approach taken by the Special Rapporteur in her 2009 report to the Council.7 The present report applies this framework and develops a typology of common violations of the rights to water and sanitation. In addition to the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil, it puts a particular emphasis on equality and non-discrimination, as well as on participation, and also examines extraterritorial obligations. The latter obligations cut across the “respect, protect, fulfil” framework. This typology is not proposed as a rigid classification, being utilized as a framework for surveying the range of violations which must be addressed, with inevitable overlaps in the categories. What is most important is to ensure that no type of violation is ignored and that no victim is denied access to effective remedies. A. Violations of the obligation to respect 17. The obligation to respect the rights to water and sanitation requires States to refrain from action that will unjustifiably interfere with their enjoyment. This obligation is of immediate effect. Common violations of the obligation to respect can be placed within the following categories: (a) Direct interference with access to water or sanitation; (b) Pollution, diversion or depletion of water resources; (c) Criminalization of activities linked to water or sanitation and punitive measures. 1. Direct interference with access to water or sanitation 18. Under the category of direct interference, common violations take the form of (a) unjustifiable or discriminatory denial of access to water or sanitation; (b) unjustifiable disconnection from services (including from prepaid water meters), for example when people are unable to pay and are left without access to even basic services; (c) unjustifiable restrictions on access to water or sanitation, such as latrines and toilets being locked at night or fenced-off water sources; (d) unaffordable increases in pricing; (e) land grabbing or other measures resulting in forced relocation that deprive the affected persons of access to water or sanitation services without an adequate alternative; and (f) destroying or poisoning water facilities or infrastructure during armed conflict, which would violate international humanitarian law. 19. Violations through direct interference are often addressed by national courts interpreting domestic law in line with international human rights law. The Court of Appeal of Botswana, for example, relied on the right to water as set out in general comment No. 15 and the General Assembly resolution on the right to water and sanitation to interpret constitutional provisions. It found that preventing a community of Bushmen from accessing their traditional boreholes amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.8 In the context of informal settlements in Argentina, a court found that a discontinuation of water supplied with tanker trucks violated the rights to “a healthy environment and dignified housing”, 6 7 8 6 E/C.12/2010/1, para. 8. A/HRC/12/24. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Botswana, Matsipane Mosetlhanyane & Ors v The Attorney General, 2011, Civil Appeal No. CACLB-074-10, paras. 19.1, 19.2 and 22.