CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015 year moratorium on their amortization payments. During the meeting, the residents were given the chance to ask questions on their resettlement, the procedure for the award of the housing units to them and the financial, transportation and medical assistance from the Government, while relocated. 4.10 The actual relocation occurred on 25 January 2011. The local government provided the residents with transportation services to the resettlement area and trucking services for their belongings. Each family was also given financial assistance, a sack of rice and groceries and medical services. Consultation meetings with residents were also conducted by the local inter-agency committee on 9, 12 and 18 March 2011. 4.11 The violence that occurred on the day of the relocation was solely attributable to certain residents and members of other interest groups. The State party has submitted for the consideration of the Committee a video taken on 25 January 2011 at Barangay Corazon de Jesus. In the video, it can be seen that, far from organizing a “peaceful human blockade”, some residents and outsiders violently attacked the police officers who attended the relocation in order to maintain peace and order. While a senior police official was peacefully negotiating with the residents to vacate the premises, a group of unruly civilians started throwing rocks, concrete blocks and Molotov cocktails at the police officers. The police officers were armed only with shields to protect themselves from the mob. Contrary to the allegations of the authors, they were not armed with rifles or guns, nor did they use tear gas on the crowd. Water from fire trucks was used only to prevent the mob from advancing towards the police ranks. Six police officers and 12 members of the relocation team were injured by the mob. No bulldozer was used during the relocation. A pay loader, which was parked in the area, was only used to shield the police officers from being attacked by the crowd, including those who were throwing rocks. The State party also refutes allegations that the residents of Barangay Corazon de Jesus were relocated to Lupang Arenda, Taytay, Rizal or in Southville 1-K-1, Rodriguez, Rizal, precisely because those areas were not suitable. Families that had voluntarily agreed to the relocation were provided with housing units at Southville 8-B and 8-C, Rodriguez, Rizal. The resettlement area was only one hour away from Barangay Corazon de Jesus and transportation facilities are accessible. It has adequate water, electricity, sewage facilities, schools, day-care centres, health centres, police outposts, a public market and livelihood centres. 4.12 The State party categorically denies the allegations that residents and community leaders were subjected to threats of arbitrary arrest, harassment or violence by government authorities. Police records show that persons who participated in the violence on 25 January 2011 were arrested and charged with illegal assembly, direct assault, illegal possession of deadly weapons, or alarm and scandal. Weapons such as slingshots, ice-picks, kitchen knives, fan knives and jungle bolo knives were recovered from the suspects. Furthermore, all the suspects were released on 27 January 2011. 4.13 In addition, the State party claims that the communication is inadmissible, because the authors failed to exhaust all available and effective domestic remedies. In 2011, a complaint was filed with the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines against local government officials, police officers and other persons in connection with the government relocation activities in Barangay Corazon de Jesus, which remains pending with the Commission. The Commission is a constitutional body mandated to investigate all forms of violations of civil and political rights committed within the State party’s territory or against its citizens. Under the national legal system, there are other legal remedies and grievance mechanisms available to the authors of the communication, if it were true that their rights were violated by the Government. The authors could charge erring government officials before the courts, the Ombudsman, the Civil Service Commission and other quasi-judicial bodies to enforce their criminal, civil and administrative accountability. Moreover, the authors could have filed a case in court prior to the relocation in order to question the compliance by government agencies with the substantive and procedural requirements of demolition or eviction activities under the Urban Development and Housing Act. 4.14 On the merits, the State party categorically denies that it violated the authors’ rights under articles 2, 6, 7 and 17 of the Covenant. With regard to the claims under article 2, the State party submits that the residents of Barangay Corazon de Jesus were provided with individual notices of relocation. Public notices were also prominently posted in conspicuous places in the area concerned. Consultations were conducted with the affected residents, and the residents were relocated in a resettlement area with adequate services and 9