Assignment FUR2601 Assignment 2 2021

2.1 FIRST COMPULSORY ASSIGNMENT: DUE DATE 7 MAY 2021 1. Your unique number is: . 2. This number must appear on your mark-reading sheet cover. Select the correct statement. 1. In the substantive stage of Bill of Rights litigation, the onus is first on the respondent, who must show that he/she infringed the applicant’s rights. (2) 1) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the applicant, who must show that an infringement of a right has taken place. 2) True, in the substantive stage, the onus is first on the respondent, who must show that he/she infringed the applicant’s rights. 3) False, in the substantive stage the onus is on the respondent to indicate that the applicant’s rights can be limited. 4) False, in the substantive stage, the onus is on the applicant, to show that the infringement is not justifiable in terms of section 36 of the Constitution. 2. Section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are specifically excluded from the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights. (2) 1) True, section 8(4) of the Constitution excludes juristic persons from the protection of the rights in the Bill of Rights because of the nature of these rights and the nature of juristic persons. 2) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that juristic persons are entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights dependant on the nature of the right and the nature of the juristic person. 3) True, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that only natural persons can lay claim to the rights in the Bill of Rights. 4) False, section 8(4) of the Constitution provides that all juristic persons are entitled to all the rights in the Bill of Rights. Marking of the assignment 1. Each answer carries 2 marks. 2. No mark will be awarded for an incorrect answer. 3. No mark will be awarded for an unanswered question. FUR2601/001/3/2021 5 3. Section 39 of the Constitution, the interpretation clause, provides that any court, tribunal or forum, when interpreting the Bill of Rights may consider international law and must consider foreign law. (2) 1) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum when interpreting the Bill of Rights, must consider international law and may consider foreign law. 2) True, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum when interpreting the Bill of Rights, may consider international law and must consider foreign law. 3) False, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum should only consider national law when interpreting the rights in the Bill of Rights. 4) True, section 39 of the Constitution provides that any court, tribunal or forum, when interpreting the Bill of Rights may consider international law and must consider foreign law, however, only as far as it pertains to matters of state security. 4. In Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found that the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation. (2) 1) True, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found that the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation. 2) False, in Ferreira v Levin the Constitutional Court found that the term “appropriate relief” referred to a declaration of invalidity that would be the only applicable relief in the event of a constitutional rights violation. 3) True, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found that the term appropriate relief referred to a declaration of invalidity as a discretionary remedy in the event of a constitutional rights violation. 4) False, in Fose v Minister of Safety and Security the Constitutional Court found that it was left to the courts to decide what appropriate relief would be in any particular circumstances. 5. In Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg the Constitutional Court found that the right to water did not require the state to provide every person with sufficient water on demand. (2) 1) True, the Constitutional Court found that that the city's free basic water policy was a reasonable measure of achieving the progressive realisation of the right to water. 2) False, the Constitutional Court found that every citizen has the right to unlimited clean water