CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015 complaint filed with the Commission on Human Rights has languished before the Commission for six years and that it failed to prevent the forced eviction of the community, given that no injunction was granted halting the evictions pending a final decision by the Commission (see para. 2.10 above) and that the State party did not show that any other specific domestic remedies, except the case pending before the Commission, would be available and effective in practice (see para. 5.8 above). However, the Committee notes the absence of information by the authors about any attempts to seek judicial or other remedies other than the complaint to the Commission, which was submitted in 2011, before the events referred to in the present communication, for the alleged violations of article 17 of the Covenant in the context of the forced eviction of 11 January 2012 or any steps taken to exhaust available domestic remedies in relation to the alleged violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the author must exhaust, for the purpose of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, all judicial or administrative remedies insofar as such remedies offer a reasonable prospect of redress and are de facto available to the author.37 Although the recourse to non-judicial bodies does not have to be exhausted to fulfil the requirements of that article, when such recourse has not been effective in cases of forced evictions, as evidenced in the present case, the authors do not convincingly explain why the judicial remedies that the State party identified as available for addressing forced evictions would not have been effective in their case. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that mere doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not absolve authors of the requirement to exhaust them. 38 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have not been met with regard to alleged violations of article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), and of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In the light of the above, the Committee will not consider further whether the authors’ allegations in that regard lack sufficient substantiation. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the authors of the communication. 37 38 12 See, for example, Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2; P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; Riedl-Riedenstein et al v. Germany, para. 7.2; Gilberg v. Germany, para. 6.5; Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4; and H.S. et al v. Canada (CCPR/C/125/D/2948/2017), para. 6.4. See, for example, Kaaber v. Iceland (CCPR/C/58/D/674/1995), para. 6.2.