Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, concerning communication No. 265/20221*, 2**, 3***
- *Adopted by the Committee at its seventy-ninth session (9–25 February 2026). ↩
- **The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Aslan Abashidze, Nadir Adilov, Lazhari Bouzid, Asraf Ally Caunhye, Peijie Chen, 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, Laura Elisa Pérez, Julieta Rossi, Preeti Saran and Michael Windfuhr. In accordance with rule 23 of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, Giuseppe Palmisano did not take part in the consideration of the communication. ↩
- ***An individual opinion by Committee member Julieta Rossi (dissenting) is annexed to the present decision. ↩
State Party: Italy
Date of adoption of decision: 13 February 2026
1.1 The author of the communication is Girolama Tabbita, a national of Italy, born on 25 January 1938. She is acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter, Giuliana Riggio, born on 20 December 1962. The author claims that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant because she and her daughter are subject to an eviction order in respect of the property in which they live and have no alternative housing. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 20 May 2015. The author is represented by counsel.
1.2 On 5 April 2022, 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 author and her daughter by suspending their eviction from the property that 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 them.
A. Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
Before registration of the communication
2.1 On 18 January 2018, the author entered into a three-year lease agreement with a monthly rent of €671.39. The author is a person with a severe disability5 and is unable to perform essential daily activities independently. She lived in the apartment with her daughter, who provided her with daily care and assistance. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the author’s daughter lost her employment and has since remained unemployed. As a result of this deterioration in the household’s economic situation, from 2020, the author was no longer able to meet the rental payments. The author’s annual income amounts to €7,869.00, derived exclusively from her social pension. The annual income of her daughter amounts to €2,144.80.
- According to the medical commission responsible for disability assessments, since 13 October 2015, the author has been recognized as having a 100 per cent disability due to persistent difficulties in carrying out tasks essential to her daily life. The author was diagnosed with cognitive deterioration, multifactorial encephalopathy, and diabetes mellitus, along with the aftereffects of a left-knee arthroplasty and gonarthrosis in the right knee. Her condition is further complicated by dysphagia and the loosening of previously implanted orthopaedic devices, affecting their stability. ↩
2.2 On 20 May 2020, the owner of the apartment filed a request to evict the author and her daughter. By decision of 28 September 2020, the Ordinary Court of Rome (civil section) upheld the request, ordered the eviction, and scheduled its enforcement for 1 January 2021. The enforcement of the eviction was suspended until 31 December 2021 pursuant to emergency measures adopted by the Government of Italy in response to the COVID-19 public health crisis.6 Upon the expiration of these measures, the eviction order became enforceable once again. Accordingly, enforcement proceedings resumed, and the author was notified that the eviction would be carried out on 18 January 2022.
- Decree-Law No. 183 of 31 December 2020, which was passed into law, with amendments, by Law No. 21 of 26 February 2021. ↩
2.3 On 30 November 2021, the author’s daughter attempted to reach an amicable settlement and wrote to the property owner explaining her personal circumstances, including that her husband had been admitted to a psychiatric facility and that her mother was in a particularly precarious state of health. As the family was not legally represented at the time, she proposed paying €500 per month and making an immediate payment of €3,000 to be deducted from the outstanding debt. These efforts were unsuccessful.
2.4 On 15 March 2022, the bailiff set 13 April 2022 as the new date for the enforcement of the eviction, to be carried out with the assistance of the police. In November 2021, the author’s daughter had requested a medical certificate attesting that the author required ongoing assistance and that relocating her to another dwelling could pose a significant risk to her health. On 21 March 2022, the author applied for social housing with the municipality of Rome. According to the information provided, the only solution proposed by the public authorities was to separate the family by placing the author in a long-term care facility, without offering any alternative housing to the author’s daughter.
2.5 The author acknowledges that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. She explains that she did not challenge or appeal the eviction order, as the applicable Italian legislation allows landlords to request a court order for eviction in cases of rent arrears, without imposing any corresponding obligation on the authorities to safeguard the tenant’s right to adequate housing or to prevent repeated displacement from one temporary accommodation option to another.
2.6 The author further submits that lodging an opposition would not have postponed the eviction, as domestic law permits the judge to issue an eviction order prior to delivering the final judgment. Any such opposition would likely have resulted in an order requiring her to bear the opposing party’s legal costs in the event that she was unsuccessful. The same would have been true of filing an appeal, which would not have been an effective remedy, given that the eviction order would have remained enforceable pending the appellate decision. The author also notes that Italian legislation does not provide for the suspension of enforcement in circumstances such as hers and her daughter’s, where the household includes a person with a disability and is eligible for public housing.
2.7 The author explains that the only potential avenue to seek a suspension of the eviction would have been to apply to the enforcement judge, requesting that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court. Such a referral would involve asking the Court to determine whether a family entitled to public housing may nonetheless be evicted or whether, alternatively, the eviction should be suspended until the allocation of suitable public housing. The author notes, however, that this mechanism is discretionary, exceptional in nature and does not constitute an effective remedy capable of preventing the eviction in practice.
After registration of the communication
2.8 Following the request for interim measures, the author submitted an application for suspension of the eviction to the municipality of Rome and the Ordinary Court of Rome. The Court initially granted the suspension and scheduled a hearing for 21 September 2022. However, at that hearing, the Court revoked the suspension, reasoning that the authorities were required to enforce regulations that carried binding legal force and could not attribute such force to non-binding recommendations. Following this decision, the bailiff proceeded to schedule the enforcement of the eviction.
2.9 On 8 November 2022, the author and her counsel were summoned to the housing policy department of the municipality of Rome for an interview with a social worker. During this meeting, the authorities acknowledged the need to secure adequate alternative housing for the family before the eviction. As no follow-up was provided, on 12 December 2022, the author submitted a written communication to the Mayor of Rome requesting either the suspension of the eviction or the provision of suitable alternative accommodation.
2.10 On 14 December 2022, the bailiff, accompanied by a doctor, a locksmith and the property owner, and assisted by the police, ordered the author to vacate the premises. The author presented a medical certificate attesting to her fragile health condition. However, the doctor, in agreement with the bailiff, deemed her “transportable”, and the eviction was carried out. The author subsequently obtained precarious and temporary shelter with family friends, who were unable to accommodate her daughter. The daughter was therefore compelled to sleep in her car.
Complaint
3.1 At the time of submitting the communication, the author alleged that the State Party would violate her and her daughter’s rights under articles 11 (1) and 12 of the Covenant were it to allow the eviction scheduled for 13 April 2022 to proceed without taking all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that the family was not rendered destitute. She further contended that the social services team of the municipality of Rome had consistently failed to provide any adequate or effective response to their precarious situation.
3.2 The author submitted that national legislation allowed the execution of evictions without ensuring access to adequate alternative housing for individuals and families who were unable to secure such housing on their own, a situation compounded in her case by the complete absence of any response or assistance from the municipality of Rome. The author recalled that the state of emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic remained in force throughout Italy and that local authorities bore primary responsibility for protecting public health. Pursuant to Law No. 833 of 23 December 1978, all mayors, including the Mayor of Rome, were required to adopt all measures necessary to protect the health of residents. In such circumstances, the municipality could have issued contingent and urgent ordinances – such as temporary requisition measures – to guarantee a home-to-home transfer for the author and her daughter if public housing was not immediately available. The enforcement of the eviction order against the author and her daughter, without any provision for relocation despite their situation, their eligibility for social housing at a controlled rent, and the fact that one family member had a 100 per cent disability, constituted a serious breach of those obligations and of the domestic legislation intended to protect vulnerable households.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 6 June 2022 and 5 October 2022, the State Party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
4.2 The State Party noted that the Constitutional Court dealt only with infringements of the 1948 Constitution and could act either ex officio, through a prosecutor, or upon request from the plaintiff or defendant. When the Court considered that an act was unconstitutional, such evaluation led to a suspension of the a quo proceeding. Pursuant to article 134 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decided on disputes concerning: (a) the constitutionality of laws and acts with the force of law adopted by the State or the regions; (b) the allocation of powers among branches of government, within the State, between the State and the regions and among the regions; and (c) charges brought against the Head of State in accordance with the Constitution. More generally, the Constitutional Court determined the validity of legislation, its interpretation and whether its implementation, in both form and substance, was consistent with the Constitution. When the Court declared a law or an act with the force of law to be unconstitutional, the norm lost force the day after the publication of the decision.
4.3 According to the State Party, none of the circumstances described by the author were applicable in the present case. It asserted that the authorities offered the author accommodation in a long-term care facility and claimed that her daughter did not reside in the apartment concerned. As indicated by the author herself, she had not appeared at the relevant court hearing. In addition, the State party submitted that domestic remedies were still pending, noting that opposition proceedings against the eviction had been initiated, with a hearing scheduled for 21 September 2022, and that enforcement of the eviction order had been suspended pending the outcome of those proceedings.
4.4 The State Party contended that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, noting that remedies must be available, effective, and sufficient or adequate. The rule regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies became relevant when such remedies were unavailable, when they lacked effectiveness or adequacy, or when there was a denial of justice or the remedies that applied were discretionary.
4.5 Concerning the merits, the State Party submitted that, since 2011, it had adopted a series of legislative measures extending the suspension of evictions and introducing special provisions aimed at mitigating the housing emergency. During the COVID19 health emergency, the Italian legislature had strengthened – albeit on an exceptional and temporary basis – the protection of the right to housing by modifying certain aspects of the regulation of lease contracts. The State Party also referred to the national housing plan, approved by a decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 16 July 2009, which it described as an integrated framework of interventions addressing the full range of beneficiaries of public housing policies. In addition, it highlighted several programmes intended to reduce housing hardship, including initiatives for the rationalization of public housing, the recovery of properties confiscated in the context of organized crime, the disposal of public residential assets, the fund for access to rental housing, the fund for tenants in rent arrears, and the Housing Conditions Observatory. At the local level, the municipality of Rome was said to have implemented various housing-related welfare measures, such as vouchers for temporary housing assistance centres, rent subsidies, contributions towards paying off rent arrears, social housing initiatives and the allocation of housing units on an exceptional basis.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1 On 9 January 2023, the author submitted her comments on the State Party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication.
5.2 The author recalls her previous submissions concerning the role of the Constitutional Court and the exhaustion of domestic remedies. She reiterates that the structural shortcomings of the housing system of Italy, and the absence of policies capable of ensuring compliance with article 11 of the Covenant, render the remedies cited by the State Party ineffective in practice.
5.3 With respect to admissibility, the author emphasizes that the State Party’s assertion that tenants may oppose eviction does not reflect the reality of Italian law or practice. Under articles 662 and 665 of the Code of Civil Procedure, judges are required to validate or declare enforceable an eviction order whenever the lease has expired or even a single month’s rent is unpaid. Judges have no discretion to refuse an eviction order, nor may they take into account the tenant’s economic situation or the absence of adequate alternative housing. Opposition proceedings do not suspend enforcement, and tenants are frequently ordered to pay the landlord’s legal costs. The law provides no remedy enabling tenants to challenge eviction enforcement on the basis of the rights protected under article 11 of the Covenant. The only postponements available are the limited extensions occasionally granted by statute, which the Constitutional Court has recently discouraged.
5.4 In practice, eviction enforcement proceeds rapidly. After service of a precept and a notice of enforcement, the bailiff typically executes the eviction on the second visit, accompanied by the police, a doctor and a locksmith, regardless of the tenant’s vulnerability or lack of alternative accommodation. There is no possibility of postponing enforcement on humanitarian or social grounds. In the present case, despite a medical certificate declaring the author “non-transportable”, the eviction was carried out with police assistance and in the absence of any municipal officials, leaving her without adequate housing.
5.5 Regarding the merits, the author submits that the State Party’s references to legislative measures, COVID19 protections and national housing programmes do not address the structural deficiencies of the housing policies of Italy. The temporary suspension of evictions during the pandemic expired on 31 December 2021, and no subsequent measures were adopted to ensure home-to-home transfer or to protect vulnerable households. The national housing plan of 16 July 2009, even if fully implemented, would have produced only approximately 3,500 units nationwide over five years, of which roughly 1,000 would have been public social housing – far below the needs of the more than 650,000 households on waiting lists, including 14,000 households in Rome. The various programmes cited by the State Party have shown minimal results, often producing housing at “lowered rent” levels that remain unaffordable for low-income households facing eviction for arrears. Subsidies for access to rental housing are delayed for years, capped at inadequate amounts and frequently inaccessible due to bureaucratic obstacles or landlord refusal. Local measures in Rome, including vouchers, rent contributions and emergency allocations of housing units, are either inapplicable to households currently facing eviction, insufficient in amount or not implemented in practice. The municipality has issued no directive governing emergency allocations, and the quota of units available for such allocations has already been exhausted for the coming years.
5.6 The author submits that, at the time of the eviction, no representative of the municipality was present, and no alternative accommodation was offered, despite her advanced age and disability. As a result, she was compelled to rely on temporary hospitality from a friend in another municipality, while her daughter was forced to sleep in her car. More than a month after the eviction, the municipality had still not provided any adequate housing solution. The author maintains that none of the measures cited by the State party addresses the structural failure to protect the rights guaranteed under articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant.
B. Consideration of admissibility and the interim measures
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 rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the communication is admissible.
6.2 The Committee recalls that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol precludes it from considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee takes note of the State Party’s argument that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been respected in the present case. The Committee also takes note of the author’s contention that the domestic remedies must be available and effective and of the claim that, if a State Party objects to the admissibility of a communication on the basis that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it bears the burden of proving that remedies exist that are available and effective.
6.3 The Committee further takes note of the author’s uncontested allegation that an appeal against the final eviction order scheduled for enforcement on 13 April 2022 had no prospect of success and that such an appeal would impose on her and her daughter an undue financial burden in view of the need to cover the legal costs of the opposing party in the event of an unsuccessful outcome. The Committee observes that the State Party refers in general terms to the existence of the Constitutional Court and to the fact that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been respected. The State Party fails to identify, however, what remedies would have been effective and accessible in the present case, in particular in the light of the author’s argument that the remedy of constitutional challenge is inaccessible to individuals. The Committee recalls its previous jurisprudence, according to which a State Party raising an objection of admissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must prove that the author of the communication has not exhausted available and effective remedies capable of redressing the alleged violation.7 The Committee considers that, if a State Party argues for inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it must identify which remedies should have been exhausted, showing that they are appropriate and effective,8 which it has failed to do in the present case. The Committee thus considers that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication.
6.4 In accordance with article 3 (2) (e) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee recalls that it will declare inadmissible any communication that is manifestly illfounded or insufficiently substantiated. The Committee notes that States Parties have a positive 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 their available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant by all appropriate means. The Committee recalls, however, that States Parties may adopt a range of possible policy measures for the implementation of the rights set forth in the Covenant, as provided for in article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol. In this regard, the Committee recognizes that States Parties may establish administrative channels to facilitate the protection of the right to housing, including by requiring individuals to undertake certain procedures to notify the authorities of their need for assistance, provided that such formalities do not impose an excessive or unnecessary burden on individuals and do not have a discriminatory effect.9
- Taghzouti Ezqouihel et al. 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; and Sariego Rodríguez et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/70/D/92/2019), paras. 7.2 and 7.4. ↩
6.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that it has not been alleged that the procedures proposed by the State Party, namely, applying for housing or for assistance from social services, would have placed an excessive or unnecessary burden on the author or would have had a discriminatory effect.10 It observes that the author ceased paying rent in 2020, that eviction proceedings started in May 2020 and that she was notified of the eviction order in September 2020, yet she did not apply for social housing until 21 March 2022 – approximately 18 months after receiving notice of the eviction and only two days before submitting her communication to the Committee. The Committee further observes that, despite being represented by counsel and being aware of the eviction proceedings, the author has not explained why she failed to apply for social housing in a timely manner.
- Muñoz García v. Spain (E/C.12/71/D/39/2018), para. 6.4. ↩
6.6 The Committee is of the view that the lateness of the author’s request for assistance and therefore her failure to make use of the administrative channels established by the State Party, such as the procedure for applying for social housing, constitute a lack of due diligence in the present case.
6.7 While the Committee acknowledges the author’s particular vulnerability as a result of her disability and her economic status, the Committee is of the view that she has not shown that she was diligent in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to secure access to alternative housing, even though she had been aware of the eviction order since September 2020 at least.11 Consequently, the Committee finds the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
- Ibid., para. 6.5. ↩
Interim measures and eviction of the author and her daughter
7.1 On 5 April 2022, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State Party to suspend the eviction of the author and her daughter while the communication was being considered or, alternatively, to grant them adequate housing following genuine and effective consultation with them.
7.2 The Committee notes that, according to its jurisprudence,12 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,13 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.14 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 under 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.15
- S.S.R. v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/51/2018), paras. 7.6 and 7.7. ↩
- Committee against Torture, Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia (CAT/C/61/D/614/2014), para. 6.1. ↩
- See, mutatis mutandis, European Court of Human Rights, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Applications No. 46827/99 and No. 46951/99, Judgment, 4 February 2005, para. 128; and Committee against Torture, Thirugnanasampanthar v. Australia, para. 6.1. ↩
- See https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr/individual-communications. ↩
7.3 The Committee notes that, on 14 December 2022, the author and her daughter 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.
7.4 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, this constitutes an infringement of article 5 of the Optional Protocol.
C. Conclusion
The Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol;
(b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State Party and to the author.
Annex
[Original: Spanish]
Individual opinion of Committee member Julieta Rossi (dissenting)
First, with regard to the admissibility of the communication, I consider that the requirements set forth in article 3 of the Optional Protocol have been met and that the communication is therefore admissible. In this regard, I concur with the majority’s view that domestic remedies have been exhausted in accordance with article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol, for the reasons outlined (paras. 6.2 and 6.3). However, I disagree with the majority’s decision to declare the communication inadmissible under article 3 (2) (e) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds that it is insufficiently substantiated because the author has not shown that she was diligent in seeking assistance from the administrative authorities to secure access to alternative housing.
In my view, this requirement is not directly connected to the subject matter of the communication – a complaint regarding a forced eviction – particularly when it is presented as a decisive and exclusive condition for its admissibility. This places an excessive burden on the author, a woman who is over 80 years old and has a severe disability, who, along with her daughter, faced eviction proceedings amid the exceptional circumstances of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. It should also be noted that, according to the facts of the case (paras. 2.1–2.4 and 2.8–2.10), the author’s daughter attempted to reach an agreement with the property owner and, when this proved unsuccessful, the author applied to the relevant authorities for social housing and subsequently submitted a written communication to the Mayor of Rome requesting either the suspension of the eviction or the provision of alternative housing.
As regards the merits of the case, in the light of the relevant facts, the issue to be resolved is whether the eviction of the author and her daughter – without a consultation process or consideration of alternative housing options, and without ensuring alternative accommodation when the eviction was ordered and carried out – constituted a violation of the right to adequate housing recognized in article 11 (1) of the Covenant. To address this question, I refer to the standards on protection against forced eviction set forth in the Committee’s opinion in the case of El Korrichi et al. v. Spain.16
- El Korrichi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/76/D/188/2020), paras. 8.1–8.10 and 9.1–9.4. ↩
I believe that the judicial authority involved in the eviction of Ms. Tabbita and her daughter failed to conduct a review of proportionality that adequately weighed the rights at stake or assessed whether the measure was reasonable and proportionate in the light of its consequences for the author and her daughter in the particular circumstances of the case. During the legal proceedings, their specific circumstances were not properly examined, no genuine consultation process was initiated with them, and State agencies with the capacity to prevent the eviction without the provision of alternative housing were not involved.
In particular, the court failed to take into account the situation of particular vulnerability of the author – an 84-year-old woman at the time of the eviction with a certified 100% disability who required care and assistance with basic daily activities – or the situation of her 59-year-old daughter, who was unemployed and served as her mother’s caregiver. The eviction was carried out without even taking into account the medical certificate submitted in the case, which attested to the author’s fragile health condition and deemed her “nontransportable”, and in the absence of any municipal officials. The family’s precarious economic situation was not taken into account either, nor the disproportionate impact that the eviction would have on the author and her daughter, considering intersectional factors such as gender, age, disability and financial status.17
- Vázquez Guerreiro et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/74/D/70/2018), paras. 8.9 and 8.10. ↩
Furthermore, no consultation process was initiated to explore housing alternatives, nor were the relevant administrative agencies consulted in view of the lack of viable options to prevent homelessness. As a result, the authors were evicted without being offered any alternative housing, either temporary or permanent. According to the available information, which the State Party has not disputed, Ms. Tabbita had to take up temporary accommodation with a friend in another municipality, while her daughter was forced to sleep in her car. More than a month after the eviction, the municipality had still not provided an adequate housing solution. In these circumstances, the State Party’s arguments are insufficient to demonstrate that it made every possible effort, using the maximum available resources, to prevent the author and her daughter from becoming homeless.
For these reasons, I consider that the State Party violated the rights of the author and her daughter under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, read separately and in conjunction with articles 2 and 3 of the Covenant and article 5 of the Optional Protocol, by failing to comply with the interim measures ordered by the Committee. In the light of this conclusion, the State Party should assess the housing needs of the author and her daughter and provide alternative accommodation if necessary. As a guarantee of non-repetition, it should amend its legislation to allow for an adequate proportionality assessment in eviction cases, ensure effective consultation and, where appropriate, guarantee the provision of alternative housing.