(a) Pre-Eviction Consultations As referred to above, the UDHA requires ‘adequate consultations’ to be undertaken with affected communities prior to eviction. Section 3(d) of the UDHA defines consultation as the: ‘constitutionally mandated process whereby the public, on their own or through people’s organizations, is provided an opportunity to be heard and to participate in the decision-making process on matters involving the protection and promotion of its legitimate collective interest, which shall include appropriate documentation and feedback mechanisms’. While this provision encapsulates the essence of the consultative process per se, it lacks the detail and proscriptive character necessary to meet the high standard required by international human rights law. As mandated by Standard 3.5 above, the process of consultation is multi-faceted and requires a number of specific steps. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs), created by HUDCC and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) pursuant to Section 28 of the UDHA provide additional requirements for the consultative process prior to eviction. At section 3(1)(e) the IRRs establish the requirements for ‘proper consultation’, which are noticeably extensive. They require a majority of affected families to be present at the consultation meetings, which will otherwise be postponed, 60 and also prescribe the subject of discussion at such meetings.61 Two follow-up consultation meetings are required to obtain feedback, which are to be within 20 days from the issuance of the notice of demolition, with one final meeting before the actual demolition.62 The establishment of numerous consultative meetings encourages a considered dialogue between government and those affected by the eviction. However, the following specific aspects of the consultation process must be updated to reflect the requirements of Standard 3.5: i. It is clear that under standard 3.5 governments are required to consider alternatives to the demolition that are proposed by affected communities. The IRRs accept that the ‘necessity of the demolition’ is a topic to be discussed at the consultation meetings between government and those affected.63 This clearly presupposes that the eviction is non-negotiable and that the affected families will not have the opportunity to challenge the project or present alternatives to be considered. The IRRs should be updated to comply with this aspect of the standard and provide clear opportunity for communities to be consulted about the project itself (not merely the process of eviction and resettlement) and offer alternatives which would not result in their eviction. A mechanism should also be established to require government to seriously consider any alternatives presented by affected communities; ii. Although the IRRs establish a process of various consultation meetings between government and affected communities, the timeframe for these 60 s. 3(1)(e), 2.0. s. 3(1)(e), 1.1-1.9. 62 s. 3(1)(e), 4.0. 63 s. 3(1)(e), 1.1. 61 35