CCPR/C/127/D/2444/2014
themselves of the opportunity to challenge the acts pursuant to the Code of Administrative
Procedure. The Committee notes that the authors tried to have their housing legalized and
that all but one of the authors’ houses were deemed ineligible for legalization because of
the road project, the reason for the authors’ eviction. The Committee also notes the authors’
argument that administrative law proceedings would be ineffective because the domestic
legal order at the time of the eviction did not allow the authors to directly challenge their
forced eviction or request the immediate provision of housing or other form of
remuneration.
8.4
The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that, although there is no obligation to
exhaust domestic remedies if they have no chance of being successful, authors of
communications must exercise due diligence in the pursuit of available remedies and that
mere doubts or assumptions about their effectiveness do not absolve the authors from
exhausting them.17 In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors did not submit
any complaints whatsoever before a domestic body regarding their eviction. While the
authors attempted to have their properties legalized, the Committee notes that they have not
shown why other administrative or judicial appeals would have been manifestly ineffective.
In light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the authors have not exhausted
domestic remedies in relation to their claims that their forced eviction constituted a
violation of their rights under articles 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27, read alone and in conjunction
with article 2 (3), of the Covenant.
9.
17
The Committee therefore decides:
(a)
Protocol;
That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional
(b)
authors.
That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the
See, inter alia, V.S. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/115/D/2072/2011), para. 6.3; Zsolt Vargay v. Canada
(CCPR/C/96/D/1639/2007), para. 7.3; and García Perea and García Perea v. Spain,
(CCPR/C/95/D/1511/2006), para. 6.2; and B.Z. et al. V. Albania (CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016), para.
6.4.
7