CCPR/C/127/D/2444/2014 also refer to the Committee’s concluding observations and jurisprudence in similar cases, 5 and to reports of international organizations. 6 The complaint 3.1 The authors contend that the State party has violated articles 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 7 3.2 Referring to the jurisprudence of the Committee and to the international case law of other bodies, the authors argue that the destruction of houses belonging to Roma amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The authors were forced to live in inhuman conditions, which had a highly adverse impact on their family life. 3.3 Referring to Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011), the authors allege that their eviction will amount to interference with their homes, contrary to article 17 of the Covenant. The authorities never consulted with the authors or apprised them of the planned extension of the road, nor have they given any reason as to why the authors’ eviction has to be effected with such haste. Moreover, the authorities have not provided an effective long-term housing solution for the authors in another area of Elbasan. Rather, the State party has only provided the authors with temporary alternative housing in the form of partial rental subsidies. While the State party has stated that it will work with the authors regarding the legalization of their properties, only one of the authors’ properties has been deemed eligible for legalization as the others stand in the way of a public interest project. 3.4 The authors argue that their right to protect their family unit as a fundamental block of society was violated through the eviction notice and the destruction of their homes, in violation of article 23 of the Covenant. The authors and their families were forced to live in inhuman conditions that impacted their family life, in direct violation of article 23. Furthermore, the apartments in which they are currently living as they await the State party’s assistance to obtain permanent housing do not meet their differing family needs. The State party has treated large and small families alike, and has not considered how the Roma culture affects the authors’ housing needs. 3.5 The authors also argue that they were discriminated against on the basis of their Roma ethnicity, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant. The eviction notices of 16 July 2014 affected only Roma citizens. Roma and Egyptian citizens are the only Albanians affected by such forced evictions. 3.6 The authors allege that their rights as protected under article 27 of the Covenant were violated. Given systemic indirect discrimination against Roma citizens, they do not have the same opportunity to secure tenure of land and are particularly vulnerable to forced evictions. As stated above, the housing in which the authors currently reside does not accommodate their Romany culture. 3.7 Lastly, the authors claim that the lack of effective domestic remedies to suspend their eviction constitutes a violation of article 2 (1) and (3) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 22 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility. The State party argues that the authors has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The domestic legal framework for challenging forced evictions was not utilized by the 5 6 7 See CCPR/C/ALB/CO/2, para. 23; A.K. et al. v. Albania (CCPR/C/127/D/2438/2104), in which the Committee granted interim measures based on virtually identical circumstances; Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011); and I Elpida and Kalamiotis v. Greece (CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013). Report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, available at www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Albania/ALB-IFU-IV-2013-003-ENG.pdf. See, mutatis mutandis, Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece (CCPR/C/99/D/1799/2008). 3