CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015 facilities. The State party denies the allegations of a violation of article 6 of the Covenant, without elaborating any details. It submits that there was likewise no violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The relocation of the residents of Barangay Corazon de Jesus was done in a humane manner and in compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law. The State party also submits that there was no violation of article 17 of the Covenant, denying the authors’ claims. The relocation was reasonable in the particular circumstances of that case. The residents were provided with satisfactory replacement housing made available to them immediately. The State party did not interfere arbitrarily with the authors’ homes so as to constitute a violation of their rights under article 17 of the Covenant. 4.15 The State party concludes by reiterating that Philippine law, including the law on relocation and resettlement, is fully compliant with the obligations of the Philippines under international human rights law, including the Covenant. The State party maintains that it did not commit any violations of its obligations under the Covenant and other relevant human rights instruments. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 9 March 2017, the authors submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 The authors argue that the Urban Development and Housing Act does not provide any justification for forced evictions. Regardless of the legal effect of proclamation No. 164, the forced eviction of the authors was in violation of the Covenant, and the State party failed to protect the authors’ rights. Since they were denied access to justice, they were consequently not able to challenge the eviction in order for the State party to meet the burden of proof of establishing exceptional circumstances justifying any eviction, or establishing that all feasible alternatives to eviction had been explored with the authors. Furthermore, the eviction rendered the authors homeless and vulnerable to violations of other human rights. 5.3 In the view of the authors, the Urban Development and Housing Act is flawed, because it fails to incorporate the obligations regarding the prohibition of forced eviction, as articulated in general comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing and general comment No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The State party failed to observe the requirements that are contained in the Act in carrying out the forced eviction of the authors. Although the Act allows for evictions in exceptional circumstances and after exploring all feasible alternatives to eviction, it also adds as a requirement “or when there is a court order for eviction and demolition”. 5.4 The authors further argue that international human rights law requires that access to justice be provided in determining whether or not an eviction is justified. What is required is not just any court order, but an order by the court that expressly finds that the exceptional circumstances exist and that all feasible alternatives to eviction have been undertaken, as well as that ensures that evictions do not occur on a discriminatory basis or render persons homeless or vulnerable to other human rights violations. 5.5 Given that the Urban Development and Housing Act is flawed and it was not interpreted in accordance with the State party’s obligations under international human rights law, the State party��s argument that the forced evictions were conducted in such a way that the requirements of the Act were observed does not mean that the authors’ rights under the Covenant were not violated. 5.6 In its concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of the Philippines, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed its concern about the Urban Development and Housing Act legalizing forced evictions and demolitions, the large number of forced evictions carried out in the name of urban development and the inadequate measures taken to provide appropriate relocation sites or adequate compensation to the forcibly evicted families, who had to live in substandard living conditions without infrastructure and basic amenities, health care, education and transport facilities 34 and urged 34 10 E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6, para. 49.