A/66/265 perpetuation of discriminatory societal attitudes towards the poorest and most vulnerable. 33. With increasing frequency, States are also penalizing the performance of certain behaviours and actions which are associated with living on the street such as sleeping, sitting, lying, littering, lodging, camping or storing belongings in public spaces; public drunkenness; public urination; or jaywalking.17 Often these regulations are vaguely worded, allowing law enforcement agencies extensive discretion and enforcement authority, which threatens to violate legal and constitutional safeguards. By making these activities or behaviours illegal, States increase the exposure of persons living in poverty to abuse, harassment, violence, corruption and extortion by both private individuals and law enforcement officials. 34. While these regulations are not explicitly addressed towards persons living in poverty, they affect them disproportionately. Owing to their lack of or limited access to housing, persons living in poverty rely more heavily on public spaces for their daily activities. Thus, individuals who have no choice but to live on the street find that daily life-sustaining activities can put them in danger of criminal sanctions. Although these types of measures are ostensibly neutral, studies show that authorities target those living in poverty, particularly homeless persons.18 This disproportionate application clearly violates the obligation to ensure equality and non-discrimination in the implementation of all laws and policies. 35. Often the underlying motivation of these measures is to reduce the visibility of poverty in the city and attract investments, development and (non-poor) citizens to the city centres. These aims are not legitimate under human rights law and they do not justify the severe sanctions that are often imposed through these regulations. 36. These laws are being implemented in a context in which the economic and financial crises have resulted in an unprecedented increase in foreclosures and evictions, forcing a growing number of families to live on the streets. Instead of using public funds to assist these families, States are instead carrying out costly operations to penalize them for their behaviour. Where there is insufficient public infrastructure and services to provide families with alternative places to perform such behaviours, persons living in poverty and homelessness are left with no viable place to sleep, sit, eat or drink. These measures can thus have serious adverse physical and psychological effects on persons living in poverty, undermining their right to an adequate standard of physical and mental health and even amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.19 __________________ 17 18 19 11-44449 For example, of 235 United States municipalities surveyed, 33 per cent prohibited camping and 30 per cent prohibited sitting or lying in certain public places. See National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and National Coalition for the Homeless, “Homes not handcuffs”, July 2009. Available from www.nlchp.org. James Farrell, “Moving on, moving out: police powers and public spaces in Australia”, to be published in August 2011 by openDemocracy (www.opendemocracy.net). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 5; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 12; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 7. The argument that the punishment of homeless people for behaviours that they have no choice but to perform in public may amount to cruel and inhuman treatment has been accepted in a number of United States jurisdictions. See Pottinger v. City of Miami 76 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 1996); Johnson v. City of Dallas 61 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 1995). 11