A/HRC/27/55 municipality to construct a sufficient number of public latrines and to provide water supply and desludging services.57 6. Failure to provide adequate services in public facilities and institutions and in emergency situations 51. Where individuals are in a situation where they cannot provide for themselves, States have an obligation to provide services, for instance in places of detention, in schools or other public institutions, and in times of emergency. 52. The Indian Supreme Court ordered schools to provide adequate toilet facilities in schools.58 Relying on empirical research showing that “parents do not send their children (particularly girls) to schools”59 wherever sanitation facilities are not provided, the Court found that a lack of toilets violated the right to education. Failure to provide water and sanitation to those deprived of liberty has been addressed by courts and international bodies primarily as constituting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The High Court of Fiji held that prisoners’ right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment was violated by lack of access to adequate sanitation facilities. 60 The Human Rights Committee has found human rights violations, as have regional human rights bodies, in a number of cases in which prisoners have been denied access to sanitation.61 53. States are obliged to have plans in place to respond to potential situations of emergency or natural disaster. Because individuals are usually unable to provide for themselves in such situations, States have an obligation to provide culturally appropriate services directly. 62 As State capacity is often limited in such situations, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, donors and other humanitarian organizations play an important role in responding to emergencies. Violations can occur where States and other actors (a) fail to design sustainable, resilient systems; (b) fail to have emergency plans in place; (c) fail to respond promptly to provide essential services to affected populations as the highest priority; (d) fail to allow access to humanitarian service providers, or create onerous barriers to access; or (e) fail to prioritize the most vulnerable populations during times of emergency. 54. While case law for enforcing the obligation to fulfil is still relatively limited, the Special Rapporteur is pleased to witness significant advances in almost all areas – from ensuring minimum essential levels to progressive realization through plans and strategies and scrutinizing budgets. She encourages all stakeholders to further such initiatives to build a more comprehensive body of case law. 57 58 59 60 61 62 Supreme Court of India, Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Others, SCR (1) 97, 29 July 1980. Environment & Consumer Protection Foundation v. Delhi Administration 2012 STPL(Web) 543 SC. Ibid. para. 4. High Court (Suva), Fiji, State v. Senijieli Boila and Pita Nainoka, HAC032D.04S, 25 October 2004. Human Rights Committee, communication No. 731/1996, M. Robinson v. Jamaica (29 March 2000), in A/55/40 (vol. II), p. 128, paras. 10.1-10.2; Human Rights Committee, Communications Nos. 241 and 242/1987, F. Birindwa ci Birhashwirwa and E. Tshisekedi wa Malumba v. Zaire (2 November 1989), in A/55/40 (vol. II); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Angola, 22 May 2008; European Court of Human Rights, Third Section, Tadevosyan v. Armenia, 2 December 2008; European Court of Human Rights, Third Section, Eugen Gabriel Radu v. Romania, 13 October 2009; European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section, Fedotov v. Russia, 25 October 2005; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Paul Lallion v Grenada, Case 11.765, Report No. 55/02, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Doc. 5 rev. 1 at 551 (2002). E/C.12/2002/11, para. 22. 15