A/66/265 IV. Penalization measures that negatively affect the enjoyment of human rights 28. This section outlines some examples of the consequences of penalization measures for the enjoyment of a number of human rights, in order to demonstrate how such measures have numerous complex and interlinked ramifications for persons living in poverty. A. Laws, regulations and practices that restrict behaviours in public spaces by persons living in poverty 29. Increasingly, States are implementing laws, regulations and practices limiting the behaviour, actions and movements of people in public space, which greatly impede the lives and livelihoods of those living in poverty. These measures vary considerably across and within States, with the common denominator being the penalization of actions and behaviours which are considered “undesirable” or a “nuisance” in public spaces. States justify these measures by classifying the prohibited behaviours as dangerous, conflicting with the demands of public safety or order, disturbing the normal activities for which public spaces are intended, or contrary to the images and preconceptions that authorities want to associate with such places.13 30. Criminal or regulatory measures (e.g. ordinances) that make vagrancy and begging unlawful are becoming increasingly common across developed and developing countries. These laws take a number of forms, from legislation that prohibits the solicitation of money in any public space to that which prohibits begging at night or in an “aggressive manner”.14 Some of these laws have a broad application, extending to the performance of any activity which might elicit money, such as performing or dancing, or exposing a wound or a deformity. In some States, it is even illegal for a person just to be in a public place and have no visible means of subsistence, such that it is likely that they stay alive by begging.15 31. It is obvious that these laws and regulations have a disproportionate impact on persons who live in poverty. When they are unable to access sufficient support and assistance from the State, persons living in poverty may have no other option than to beg in order to stay alive. To punish them for their actions in circumstances where they have no other means of survival is clearly a disproportionately punitive measure. 32. Bans on begging and vagrancy represent serious violations of the principles of equality and non-discrimination.16 Such measures give law enforcement officials wide discretion in their application and increase the vulnerability of persons living in poverty to harassment and violence. They serve only to contribute to the __________________ 13 14 15 16 10 Antonio Tossi, “Homelessness and the control of public space: criminalising the poor?”, European Journal of Homelessness, vol. 1 (December 2007), p. 226. See, for example, section 2, Safe Streets Act 1999 (Ontario, Canada); section 2(1), Safe Streets Act 2004 (British Columbia, Canada) and section 3, Vagrancy Act 1824 (United Kingdom). Section 2(1), Bombay (Prevention of Begging) Act 1959. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 26. 11-44449