Thanks for the link. Here's what appears to be the significant part:

include the right to housing

There was a person in the US House not too long ago, Charlie Rangel, who introduced a bill to:

recognize a person's right to a home

I think I have that correct. And what if the person can't afford a home? You guessed it, a home will be provided to them by the government, ie. the tax payers.

I remember reading an article by Walter Williams where he laid out a test you can use for determining when something is not a right. He said:

Something can't be a right if it implies an obligation on someone else.

I may not have that word for word correct but if not it's pretty close. I think his logic is pretty clear and correct. This means, as we all already know, healthcare is not a right. Having a home is not a right. etc.