Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 165/20191*, 2**
- *Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-seventh session (10–28 February 2025). ↩
- **The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Aslan Abashidze, Lazhari Bouzid, Asraf Ally Caunhye, Laura-Maria Crăciunean-Tatu, Charafat El Yedri Afailal, Peters Sunday Omologbe Emuze, Santiago Manuel Fiorio Vaesken, Ludovic Hennebel, Joo-Young Lee, Karla Vanessa Lemus de Vásquez, Seree Nonthasoot, Giuseppe Palmisano, Laura Elisa Pérez, Julieta Rossi, Preeti Saran and Michael Windfuhr. ↩
State Party: Spain
Date of adoption of Views: 14 February 2025
1.1 The authors of the communication are Zaira Salazar Motos, a Spanish national born on 24 November 1989, and Luis Miguel Rodríguez Vázquez, a Spanish national born on 11 February 1990. They submit the communication on behalf of themselves and their children, A.R.S., born on 14 May 2006, A.R.S., born on 25 September 2011, Z.R.S., born on 21 May 2014, and L.M.R.S, born on 21 March 2017. The authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant because they are subject to an eviction order in respect of the property they live in with their children and have no alternative housing. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 5 May 2013. The authors are not represented by counsel.
1.2 On 3 November 2019, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications, registered the communication and, in accordance with article 5 of the Optional Protocol, requested the State Party to take measures to avoid possible irreparable harm to the authors and their minor children by suspending their eviction from the property they occupied while the communication was being considered by the Committee or, alternatively, by granting them alternative accommodation on grounds of special need, following genuine and effective consultation with the authors.
A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
Before registration of the communication
2.1 The authors and their children were renting a private home. After the second author became ill, they were unable to pay the rent due to a lack of economic resources and decided to occupy, without legal title, a property belonging to the Madrid Housing Authority.4 The authors claim that they attempted to regularize their situation in 2015 through a social rental agreement but that their requests have repeatedly been denied.5
2.2 In 2017, the second author, who has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis, was recognized as having a disability calculated at 65 per cent.
2.3 On 17 April 2017, the second author applied to the Madrid Municipal Housing and Land Company for the family to join the permanent registry of housing applicants.
2.4 On 6 June 2018, the first author applied for social housing on grounds of special need. On 25 June and 5 July 2018, the authors were required to provide documentation to supplement their application, namely their driving licences and documents attesting to their housing situation and their employment and social security history. The application was discontinued due to the absence of a response from the authors.
2.5 On 4 July 2018, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 14 issued a judgment convicting the first author of the minor offence of unlawful appropriation and ordering her to vacate the property.
2.6 On 29 August 2019, the same court issued an order for the first author’s immediate eviction. On 30 September 2019, the court issued an order setting 6 November 2019 as the eviction date.
2.7 On 26 October 2019, the author filed a request with Madrid Court of Investigation No. 14 to suspend the eviction, claiming that the family was in an especially vulnerable situation.
After registration of the communication
2.8 On 4 November 2019, based on the request for interim measures issued by the Committee on the same day, the authors submitted a written request to Madrid Court of Investigation No. 14 asking for the suspension of the eviction scheduled for 6 November 2019 or the provision of alternative housing suited to their needs.
2.9 The Court kept the date of 6 November 2019 as scheduled. However, the eviction attempt was thwarted by the presence of neighbours and local neighbourhood associations at the entrance to the property, and their efforts led to the eviction being postponed until 13 December 2019.
2.10 On 13 November 2019, the authors submitted to the Madrid Social Housing Agency a written request for an assessment of their case with a view to providing them with alternative housing and for the Court to be notified that they opposed the enforcement of the eviction, scheduled for 13 December 2019, until such time as they and their children were relocated to alternative housing, noting that the family would be left destitute if evicted.
2.11 On 13 December 2019, the authors and their children were evicted.
2.12 On 15 December 2019, the authors again occupied, without legal title, the same property from which they had been evicted.
2.13 On 13 February 2020, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 33 issued a judgment convicting the first author of the minor offence of unlawful appropriation and ordering her eviction from the property. The author appealed against the judgment, alleging that an error had been made in the assessment of the evidence, since the property had been empty and in poor condition before the authors began living in it. She argued that she should not be subjected to criminal proceedings because the family was in need.
2.14 On 6 November 2020, the Second Chamber of the Provincial High Court of Madrid dismissed the author’s appeal. The High Court considered that the lower court had not erred in prosecuting the author for the offence of which she had been convicted and that the necessary elements of the offence were present, as it was proven that she was occupying the property without legal title and was aware that it was illegal to do so. The High Court also considered that it was not for the author to decide her family’s level of need and that such a determination could be made only by the public social housing authorities responsible for the identification and objective distribution of social housing on the basis of an assessment of applicants’ actual level of need.
2.15 On 8 March 2021, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 33 issued an order for the authors to be evicted on 29 March 2021.
2.16 On 17 March 2021, the author submitted to Madrid Court of Investigation No. 33 a copy of the communication that had been filed with the Committee on 31 October 2019.
2.17 On 18 March 2021, the author filed a written request with Madrid Court of Investigation No. 33 for the eviction to be suspended, alleging that the social services department had failed to intervene to assess the family’s circumstances and identify suitable alternative housing. The author noted that she lived in the property with her husband, who was recognized as having a disability calculated at 65 per cent, and their four minor children. In the request, the author also asked that the eviction be suspended on the basis of Royal Decree-Law No. 11/2020 of 31 March on supplementary urgent social and economic measures to address the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which provides for the suspension of eviction proceedings and evictions for economically vulnerable persons without alternative housing and which is applicable to civil and criminal proceedings.
2.18 On 23 March 2021, the author submitted a second written request to the same Court of Investigation, asking again for the eviction to be suspended on the basis of article 11 (1) of the Covenant and for the Court to send an official letter to the State Legal Service of the Subdirectorate General for Constitutional Matters and Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice requesting it to provide information on the progress of the communication before the Committee. She also requested that the Court send an official letter to the Madrid Social Housing Agency requesting it to provide information on any available emergency housing.
Complaint
The authors claim that the State Party would violate their rights under article 11 (1) of the Covenant if it allowed the eviction scheduled for 6 November 2019 to proceed without taking steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that their family is not left destitute. The authors allege that the social services department of Madrid city council has been aware of their precarious housing situation since at least 2010. The authors allege that they attempted to regularize their situation in 2015 but that their requests have repeatedly been denied, leading to their current situation.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 7 July 2020, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
4.2 Regarding admissibility, the State Party argues that the authors have not exhausted all available domestic remedies given that they last filed an application for social housing on grounds of special need on 6 July 2018 but never provided the documentation that was requested from them on 25 June and 5 July 2018 to enable the consideration of their application. The State Party asserts that this application for public housing was discontinued due to the failure to provide the required documentation. The State Party argues that the authors’ failure to supplement their application meant that it was not possible to proceed to the consideration of their eligibility for public housing.
4.3 Regarding the merits, the State Party argues that no one has the right to occupy another’s property by force and affirms that the right to own property is also a fundamental human right, protected by article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 33 of the Spanish Constitution. The State Party argues that occupying a property through unlawful appropriation does not constitute a tenancy protected by article 11 of the Covenant. Therefore, it argues that the return of the property to its owner, and the subsequent eviction of the family due to the first author’s conviction for the criminal offence of unlawful appropriation, did not constitute a forced eviction under the terms of the Covenant and the Committee’s case law.6
- The State Party refers to general comment No. 7 (1997); the basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement; and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Forced Evictions”, Fact Sheet No. 25/Rev.1. ↩
4.4 The State Party emphasizes that the authors have returned to occupy the same property from which they were evicted. Despite having the option of submitting an application for public housing and providing the required documentation, the authors chose to occupy the property again. The State Party maintains that the State, regional and local authorities did not violate article 11 (1) of the Covenant, having made every possible effort, before and after the eviction, to provide for the authors, both socially and economically, including through a minimum income allowance of €669.40 per month, a non-contributory pension of €392 per month, a dependent child benefit of €196 per month (paid every six months) and a home care allowance of €268.79 per month due to the second author’s dependency. The State Party also indicates that, due to the state of alert, the social services department of the district of Vicálvaro was responsible for overseeing the social interventions. The State Party argues that, although the authors claim to lack access to adequate housing, they have not cooperated with the relevant authorities to remedy their situation of vulnerability and in particular to obtain a housing solution other than occupation.
Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1 On 6 December 2020, the authors submitted their comments on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
5.2 The authors indicate that as they have lived in the same property for more than 10 years, the situation described in the communication is not new. They reject the State Party’s arguments and reiterate that they are being forcibly evicted from the home where they have raised their children for 10 years. The authors indicate that all they are seeking is to be provided with a rental contract so that they can start paying rent and live in peace. The authors claim that the administration’s denial of their right to housing is all the more serious given that it is aware that they have a large family and that one of the authors is in poor health.
5.3 The authors provide a copy of Supreme Court judgment No. 1581/2020 of 23 November 2020, in which the Court ruled against the Madrid Social Housing Agency, which sought to evict a vulnerable family, and found that it had failed to observe proportionality in its actions, since the property concerned is publicly owned rather than a private property belonging to an individual.
B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility
6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 10 (2) of its provisional rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether or not the communication is admissible.
6.2 The Committee notes the State Party’s argument, which has not been contested by the authors, that their application for public housing was discontinued because they did not submit the documentation required by the competent administration as part of the procedure for assessing their entitlement to such housing. The Committee also notes the authors’ argument that the social services department had been aware of their situation of vulnerability since 2010, and that they attempted to regularize their situation in 2015.
6.3 The Committee notes that the alleged late application for social housing points to a lack of due diligence on the part of the authors.7 In this regard, the Committee recalls that each State Party has an obligation under article 2 (1) of the Covenant to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant by all appropriate means. In that connection, States Parties may adopt a range of possible policy measures to implement the rights set forth in the Covenant, as provided for in article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee therefore recognizes that States Parties may establish administrative channels to facilitate the protection of the right to housing, including by requiring individuals to take certain administrative steps to notify the authorities of their need for assistance in respect of their right to housing. These formalities should not impose an excessive or unnecessary burden on individuals and should not have a discriminatory effect.8 In the present case, the Committee is aware that among the legal requirements for access to social housing in the Community of Madrid, which are set out in the report of the Department of Housing and Local Administration of the Community of Madrid annexed to the State Party’s observations, applicants must not be occupying a property without title and without the consent of the owner. Since the authors were occupying the property without title, their application was bound to be unsuccessful. Despite this, the Committee notes that the authors explained their situation of vulnerability and their urgent need for alternative housing in repeated written submissions to the judicial authorities and to the Madrid Social Housing Agency.
- El Korrichi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/D/188/2020), para. 6.3. ↩
- Ibid., para. 6.4; Taghzouti Ezqouihel v. Spain (E/C.12/69/D/56/2018), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; Loor Chila et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/70/D/102/2019), paras. 6.3 and 6.4; Sariego Rodríguez and Dincă v. Spain (E/C.12/70/D/92/2019), paras. 7.2 and 7.4; and Martínez Cortés v. Spain (E/C.12/73/D/214/2021), para. 6.3. ↩
6.4 The Committee therefore considers that the authors have exercised due diligence in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to find alternative housing and that article 3 of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication.
6.5 The Committee notes that the communication meets the other admissibility requirements under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol and, accordingly, declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits.
C. Committee’s consideration of the merits
Legal issues
7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication, taking into account all the information provided to it, in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of the Optional Protocol.
7.2 Following its consideration of the relevant facts and in the light of the parties’ submissions, the Committee determines that the issue raised by the communication, and which must be resolved, is the following: whether or not the decision to evict, and the actual eviction of, the authors and their children without making provision for consultation or a review of alternative housing or taking all reasonable steps to the maximum of the available resources constituted a violation of the right to adequate housing enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Covenant. To this end, the Committee will first examine whether the eviction process and the enforcement of the decision in respect of the authors and their children complied with the guarantees required by the Covenant. Second, the Committee will determine whether the State Party fulfilled its duty to provide persons in vulnerable situations with alternative housing or, failing that, whether it took other measures to the maximum of its available resources.
7.3 To answer this question, the Committee refers, first of all, to the standards relating to protection against forced evictions in the context of the right to adequate housing, as established in its Views in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain,9 including the requirement for the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality to be respected in the context of evictions and the duty of the judge to weigh rights against each other when reviewing an eviction decision. In El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, the Committee sets out a series of procedural protections that should be afforded in relation to evictions, including an opportunity for genuine consultation on alternative housing with the affected persons, and, if a lack of resources means that there are no viable alternatives, a requirement for the administrative authorities to present the available options with a view to ensuring that the eviction will not leave anyone homeless.10
Proportionality test and the weighing of rights in the eviction of the authors and their children, best interests of the children and disproportionate impacts
7.4 The Committee will proceed to determine whether the authorities considered the proportionality of the objective of the eviction to its consequences for the persons evicted, including weighing the benefits of the measure – in this case, protecting the right to property of the State agency that owns the social housing – against its possible consequences for the rights of the evicted persons11 in the specific circumstances of the case.
- López Albán et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/37/2018), para. 11.5. ↩
7.5 The Committee refers to its Views in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, in which it set out a list of elements that must be assessed when analysing the proportionality of an eviction: (a) the availability of adequate alternative housing; (b) the personal circumstances of the occupants and their dependants and how those circumstances might give rise to one or more situations of vulnerability; (c) the occupants’ cooperation with the authorities in seeking suitable solutions; and (d) the distinction between properties belonging to individuals who need them as a home or source of income and properties belonging to banks, financial institutions or other entities.12
- El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, para. 10.2; and El Mourabit Ouazizi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/72/D/133/2019). ↩
7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that, both in the judgment of 4 July 2018, with respect to the first conviction and eviction order concerning the first author, and in the judgment of 6 November 2019, dismissing her appeal in respect of the second set of proceedings regarding the minor offence, the eviction orders were issued without an analysis of the impact of eviction on the authors and their four minor children given the family’s extreme vulnerability and the absence of alternative housing. In the light of the specific circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that a proper proportionality test should have included weighing the authors’ socioeconomic vulnerability; the best interests of the children; the differential impacts of eviction on the second author, who has a recognized degree of dependency; the social utility of the property where the authors and their children lived, given that it belonged to the Madrid Social Housing Agency; the authors’ previous submissions requesting social housing; the availability of social housing provided by the administrative authorities responsible; and the existence of alternative means of resolving the problem.
7.7 The Committee also notes that, at the time that the eviction was ordered, the author’s children were 4, 6 and 12 years old. In this regard, the Committee also recalls the obligation for eviction decisions to take into account the best interests of the child.13
- El Korrichi et al. v. Spain, para. 11.2; and Vázquez Guerreiro et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/74/D/70/2018), para. 12.1; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 21 (2017) on children in street situations, para. 50. ↩
7.8 Based on the foregoing, the Committee observes that it does not appear from any of the decisions of the judicial authorities that the best interests of the authors’ four minor children were considered when ordering the evictions. The decisions do not show that the court in question undertook a specific analysis of how an eviction could affect the authors’ four children or what the best decision would be, considering that, pursuant to article 10 (3) of the Covenant, special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on their behalf.
7.9 The Committee notes that the courts also failed to take into account the authors’ specific precarious economic situation, insofar as the first author is the head of the family and is responsible for four children and for her partner who has a recognized degree of dependency, or the disproportionate impact that the eviction would have on her given the discrimination faced by women, the lack of equal opportunities for access to adequate housing and to employment, and the larger share of the caregiving burden that women bear as compared to men.14 The Committee notes that the courts also failed to consider, in particular, the disproportionate impact that the eviction would have on the second author, given his disability and dependency due to paranoid schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis.
- Vázquez Guerreiro et al. v. Spain, para. 12.3. ↩
Consultation process with the authors, the right to be heard and the best interests of the child
7.10 To assess the authors’ situation, the court should have made arrangements for genuine and effective consultation with them and requested the administrative authorities to provide information on any available social housing and on the authors’ socioeconomic situation. The Committee notes that the authors filed several requests for suspension of the eviction order before the competent judicial authorities, claiming that they were in a particularly vulnerable situation and drawing attention to the presence of four children and a person with a disability in the household. Nevertheless, despite the various requests for a stay of eviction and the appeals filed by the authors, the Committee considers that there is no evidence of a genuine and effective judicial consultation mechanism to examine alternatives to eviction. The Committee also notes that, in view of the principle of progressive autonomy, the children should have been heard, directly or indirectly, but were not.
Duty of States to provide alternative housing to persons in need or to take all measures to the maximum of available resources
7.11 The Committee recalls the standards relating to the duty of States to provide alternative housing to persons in need or to take all measures to the maximum of available resources. It also recalls that all alternative housing must be adequate, including with regard to security of tenancy. However, States Parties may demonstrate that, despite having made every effort to the maximum of their available resources, it has been impossible to provide permanent alternative housing to an evicted person in need of alternative housing. The use of temporary emergency accommodation that does not meet all the requirements of adequate alternative housing is then permitted. However, States Parties must endeavour to ensure that the temporary accommodation protects the human dignity of the persons evicted, meets all safety and security requirements and does not become a permanent solution but is a step towards obtaining adequate housing. The right of members of a family not to be separated and to enjoy a reasonable level of privacy must also be taken into account.
7.12 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State Party merely maintains that the Madrid social services department provided the family with various economic benefits. However, the Committee notes that, according to the information before it, the authors were never offered alternative housing or temporary emergency accommodation to prevent the family from becoming homeless as a result of the eviction, despite their repeated requests. The Committee further notes that, by occupying a property without sufficient title, the authors’ applications for housing, whether on grounds of special need or of an emergency social situation, had no chance of success for as long as such occupation without title continued, since they failed to meet one of the essential requirements for the allocation of housing in the Community of Madrid (see para. 6.3). The Committee notes that the State Party has not provided an explanation for the decision to deny the authors social housing. Specifically, it has failed to demonstrate that this denial was justified on the basis that resources were being allocated to a general policy or emergency plan aimed at the progressive realization of the right to housing, especially for persons in particularly vulnerable situations.15 The State Party has also failed to explain the reasons why it had been unable to provide the authors with a housing solution since 2015, when it first became aware of their vulnerable situation. The State Party has also failed to explain to what extent the policy, albeit lawful, of automatically excluding from the list of housing applicants any person who is occupying a property without legal title due to necessity was duly justified and how it was the most appropriate way to ensure the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant. The Committee recalls that the criminalization of a social issue such as homelessness is a disproportionate response by the State and does not serve the intended purpose.16
7.13 The Committee also recalls that States Parties can demonstrate that, despite not having been able to directly provide alternative housing to evicted persons, they have taken measures, to the maximum of their available resources, to provide social assistance to such persons in order to promote their social reintegration and facilitate their access to adequate housing. In this regard, the Committee notes in particular the measures taken by the social services department of the district of Vicálvaro to support the authors and their children through the allocation of various economic benefits such as the minimum income allowance of €669.40 per month, a non-contributory pension of €392 per month, a dependent child benefit of €196 per month (paid every six months) and a home care allowance of €268.79 per month due to the second author’s dependency. However, while recognizing the importance of such social assistance measures to support the authors and their children as persons in a vulnerable social situation, the Committee considers that the State Party has not provided information to demonstrate how this assistance constituted measures, to the maximum of its available resources, intended, inter alia, to facilitate the authors’ access to adequate housing.
7.14 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the State Party has not demonstrated that it has made all possible efforts, using all available resources, to realize, as a matter of urgency, the right to housing of the authors and their children, who were in a particularly vulnerable situation.
Interim measures and eviction of the authors and their children
8.1 On 3 November 2019, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State Party to suspend the eviction of the authors and their children while the communication was being considered or, alternatively, to grant them adequate housing following genuine and effective consultation with the authors.
8.2 The Committee notes that, according to its jurisprudence,17 the adoption of interim measures pursuant to article 5 of the Optional Protocol is vital to the Committee’s fulfilment of the responsibility entrusted to it under the Optional Protocol,18 as the reason for the existence of interim measures is, inter alia, to preserve the integrity of the process, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanism for protecting Covenant rights when there is a risk of irreparable harm.19 It also recalls that, as established in its guidelines on interim measures, any State Party that does not respect the interim measures requested by the Committee is in breach of its obligation to respect in good faith the individual communications procedure established in the Optional Protocol, since failure to respect the interim measures makes it difficult for any future Views to reverse the harm caused to the victims.20
- S.S.R. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/51/2018), paras. 7.6 and 7.7. ↩
- Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 6.1. ↩
- See, mutatis mutandis, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (applications No. 46827/99 and No. 46951/99), judgment of 4 February 2005, para. 128; and Subakaran R. Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 6.1. ↩
- See https://www.ohchr.org/es/treaty-bodies/cescr/inquiry-procedure. ↩
8.3 The Committee notes that, on 13 December 2019, the authors and their children were evicted despite the Committee’s request for the State Party to adopt interim measures and without having been granted adequate alternative housing following genuine consultation with them.
8.4 As the State Party did not explain why the interim measures could not be taken, the Committee is of the view that, in the circumstances, the State Party has violated article 5 of the Optional Protocol.
D. Conclusion
9.1 On the basis of all the information provided and in the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee finds that the eviction of the authors and their children without a proper assessment of proportionality by the judicial authorities, including consideration of the disproportionate impact that the eviction could have on the first and second authors and their four children or of the principle of the best interests of the child, and without a guarantee, as part of the procedure, of adequate consultation, together with the lack of alternative housing and the State Party’s failure to provide evidence that it had taken all appropriate measures to the maximum of its resources, constituted a violation of the right to adequate housing, under the terms of the Covenant, in respect of the authors and their children.
9.2 The Committee, acting under article 9 (1) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State Party has incurred international responsibility owing to the violation of the right of the authors and their children under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with articles 3 and 10 (3). The Committee also finds that the State Party has violated article 5 of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, the State Party has an obligation to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of the present Views.
The State Party is under an obligation to provide the authors and their children with an effective remedy, in particular by: (a) reassessing their needs, if they are not currently in adequate housing, with a view to providing them with public housing or taking another measure that would enable them to obtain access to adequate housing, bearing in mind the criteria set out in the present Views; (b) providing the authors with financial compensation for the violations of their rights; and (c) reimbursing the authors for the legal costs reasonably incurred in submitting the present communication, at both the domestic and international levels.
The Committee recalls that, in accordance with its international obligations, the State Party must take all necessary measures to guarantee the non-repetition of similar violations in the future. The State Party is therefore obliged to ensure that its legislation and the enforcement thereof are consistent with the international standards set out in the Covenant. In particular, the State Party should:
(a) Ensure that its normative framework allows persons in respect of whom an eviction order is issued and who might consequently be at risk of destitution or of a violation of their Covenant rights, including persons who are occupying a property without legal title, to challenge the decision before a judicial or other impartial and independent authority with the power to order the cessation of the violation and to provide an effective remedy so that such authorities can examine the proportionality of the measure; and consider, where appropriate, the best interests of the child and the disproportionate impact of evictions on women, especially those who are caring for minor children or other dependents as the head of the household and whose economic situation is precarious;
(b) Take the necessary measures to ensure that evictions affecting persons who lack the wherewithal to obtain alternative housing take place only within the framework of proceedings involving genuine and effective consultation with the persons concerned and in which all available alternative housing (whether belonging to the State or made available by the relevant State agencies, including those that were consulted during the legal proceedings) is assessed, and only after the State has taken all essential steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that evicted persons can obtain alternative housing, especially in cases involving families, single-parent households (particularly those headed by women), older persons, children or other persons in vulnerable situations. If the group to be evicted includes children, the proceedings must guarantee their right to be heard;
(c) Adopt the measures necessary to put an end to the practice of automatically excluding from lists of applicants for housing all persons who find themselves occupying a property without legal title due to necessity, so that all such persons have equal access to the social housing stock, removing any unreasonable condition that might exclude persons at risk of destitution;
(d) Take the necessary measures to solve the problems caused by the failure of the courts to coordinate decisions, adopted in proceedings of any kind, that can result in an evicted person’s being left without adequate accommodation and the efforts made by social services providers;
(e) Develop and implement, in coordination with the Autonomous Communities and to the maximum of its available resources, a comprehensive plan to guarantee the right to adequate housing for low-income persons, in keeping with general comment No. 4 (1991). The plan should provide for the necessary resources, indicators, time frames and evaluation criteria to guarantee these individuals’ right to housing in a reasonable, timely and measurable manner;
(f) Establish a protocol for complying with requests for interim measures made by the Committee and inform all relevant authorities of the need to grant such requests in order to ensure the integrity of the procedure;
(g) Establish follow-up mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of reparation measures and to prevent the recurrence of similar situations.
In accordance with article 9 (2) of the Optional Protocol and rule 21 (1) of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, the State Party is requested to submit to the Committee, within a period of six months, a written response, including information on measures taken in follow-up to the Views and recommendations of the Committee. The State Party is also requested to publish the Views of the Committee and to distribute them widely, in an accessible format, so that they reach all sectors of the population.