- 148 - 6. The right was subsequently reflected in article 11, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provides: "1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing ..." 7. During debates and discussions in Nairobi, especially in the context of the meetings of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), several different arguments were apparently advanced to support the proposition that no right to adequate housing has ever been recognized in international law, despite the clear wording of these provisions. 8. The first argument was to the effect that these provisions recognize only "a right to an adequate standard of living", but not a right to housing. This argument is simply not tenable. In the first place, the Commission on Human Rights, as well as the General Assembly and a host of other bodies, have regularly referred to the right to housing in documents, legal instruments and other texts between 1948 and today. The suggestion that there is no right to housing has never before been asserted. Indeed, not a single report submitted by any of the 131 States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has ever challenged, let alone denied, that there is a separate and distinct right to adequate housing recognized in the Covenant. It is very strange for this matter to have been raised for the first time after well over 40 years of debate in which no such challenge has ever been made. 9. Secondly, if there is no right to housing based on these instruments then there is, equally, neither a right to adequate food nor a right to clothing. It is difficult to accept that this could possibly be the case given that the resulting situation would directly contradict innumerable resolutions adopted by every United Nations body from the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to the Commission on Human Rights and many others. 10. Thirdly, as a matter of logic, the right to an adequate standard of living, the existence of which the argument seems to acknowledge, is clearly composed of several elements. One of these is housing. If there is a right to the overall package, there is clearly a right also to the component parts, and thus also a right to housing. 11. Fourthly, this argument would also apply in relation to many of the central provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Suffice it to note that there is no reference in that instrument to a "right to be free from torture", but merely a statement that "No one shall be subjected to torture ...". It is thus apparent that the argument put forward in Nairobi in relation to the right to housing is without any logical or legal foundation. 12. The second argument used by those disputing the existence of a right to housing was that it is not part of customary law. While this proposition is debatable, its acceptance means neither more nor less than that housing is on a par with a wide range of other human rights which many international law