additional requirement, either incumbent upon government or a private landowner, to ensure that adequate relocation is provided prior to the execution of an order for eviction. To acknowledge that eviction can take place before such time as resettlement is available is in clear violation of the standards set by international human rights law, that evictions shall not render communities homeless or vulnerable to other human rights abuses. Such a state of affairs leaves evicted communities without certainty as to whether they will actually be resettled, rendering them susceptible to homelessness. The international standards are clear that temporary financial compensation is not sufficient for government to discharge its obligation to provide resettlement to evicted communities where they lack adequate resources to provide for themselves. There should also be scope within the legal regime to provide explicitly for compensation to resettled communities for losses incurred during the eviction process, whether as a result of damage to their personal or real property, or other damage sustained. More essentially, in the case of evictions pursuant to a court order, the legislation should specify that any compensation provided cannot replace adequate resettlement. It should be further incorporated into the legal framework that court orders for evictions cannot proceed unless a resettlement site has been confirmed, where the execution of the eviction order will render those affected homeless or at risk of homelessness. (c) Conditions of Evictions Section 28(c)(1) of the UDHA clearly stipulates that a notice period of 30 days is required prior to any eviction. As mentioned above, it should be clarified that this notice period is separate from, and must occur subsequent to, the process of consultation with those affected by the eviction. There is no provision in the UDHA or the IRRs with respect to the content of the notice of eviction. Standard 3.6 requires that those affected are provided adequate and reasonable notice that contains a detailed justification for the eviction, reasons why there are no reasonable alternatives, information about measures taken to minimise adverse effects on communities, and information about appeals mechanisms available to those affected to dispute the eviction order. The law should provide further detail on the content of the eviction notices to ensure that these requirements are met and that this information is included in eviction notices as a matter of course. There is some further concern with the relatively short period of notice established by the UDHA. Standard 3.6 specifies that at least 90-days notice should be provided to communities prior to their resettlement, subsequent to the conclusion of any consultations between government and those affected. Accordingly, to fully comply with international law the notice period should be extended to at least 90 days. Sections 28(c)(3) and (4) of the UDHA require that local government officials are present during evictions and that all parties involved, including those conducting the demolition, are identified as taking part in the eviction. This complies with standard 3.7 on the identification and presence of government officials. 37