CCPR/C/127/D/2444/2014 authors. The authors did not bring a claim before an administrative body or court. 8 While the State party recognizes that challenging an eviction order before domestic courts does not automatically stay an eviction, it asserts that the courts do have the power to order that an eviction be stayed.9 For this reason, the State party argues that the authors should have challenged the eviction order in a domestic court, requesting a stay of eviction in the process. 4.2 Regarding the authors’ discrimination claims, the State party asserts that under Law No. 10 221, the Government aims to ensure that the rights of all persons are protected equally and that all persons are equal before the law. Under that law, the Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination has jurisdiction over complaints regarding discrimination. According to the State party, the authors should have availed themselves of this mechanism at the domestic level. 4.3 The State party explains that the Constitution and domestic legislation guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms, equality before the law and the right of individuals to appeal before the administrative and judicial bodies. Specifically, the Constitution provides that the fundamental human rights and freedoms are indivisible, inalienable and inviolable and stand at the base of the entire legal order, and that the bodies of public power, in fulfilling their duties, must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms and contribute to their realization (art. 15). According to article 18 of the Constitution, everyone is equal before the law, without discrimination. Restriction of the rights and freedoms provided for in the Constitution may be imposed only by law, in the public interest or for the protection of the rights of others, and the restriction must be proportionate to the situation that has dictated it (art. 17). Under article 42 of the Constitution, the rights recognized in the Constitution and by law may not be infringed without due process, and all persons, in order to protect their legal and constitutional rights, freedoms and interests or in the case of charges brought against them, have the right to a fair and public trial within a reasonable time period by an independent and impartial court specified by the law. Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to appeal against a judicial decision to a higher court, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution. 4.4 Lastly, the State party implies that the authors lack standing to bring a complaint, as they have been provided with alternative accommodation in the form of subsidized rent and their eviction notices were revoked. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 In their comments of 29 October 2014 and 1 April 2015, the authors assert that they are victims despite the provision of alternative accommodation in the form of subsidized rent and the non-demolition of A.L.’s house. The authors argue that they were offered remedies only after the Committee issued of its request for interim measures. No agreement had been made available to the authors at the time when the notice of demolition was served, nor was any alternative accommodation offered at any point before their attempted eviction. Furthermore, the authors contend that the alternative housing offered by the State party is not an effective form of redress. The State party has never stated when the authors will be provided with housing that they will own. The authors have been forced into rented accommodation that does not take into consideration the different needs of their families, with subsidies that are not adjusted according to family size, and the State party has not ensured that the authors will not be threatened with eviction by the landlord. The authors state that because the subsidy given by the State party covers only 50 per cent of the rent, if the authors fail to pay the rent they will be unable to challenge an eviction. According to 8 9 4 The State party points out that an individual may seek revocation, repeal or modification of administrative acts such as the authors’ eviction notice. The State party also notes that under the Civil Procedure Code, the authors could have sought recourse in a court. The State party draws on article 14 of Law No. 9780, as amended in 2013, noting that administrative and judicial appeal cases expressly offer the possibility of submitting administrative complaints and obtaining compensation for damages, including eviction stays. The State party also notes that under the Civil Procedure Code, individuals may ask the court to suspend the enforcement of the act, and that the court may allow the suspension when there is a risk of causing serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff.