CCPR/C/127/D/2444/2014 inspectorate oversaw the eviction notification process for the vacation of houses and land, in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure. Notice was given to the authors on 16 July 2014 to vacate their private property within five days of receipt, in accordance with domestic legislation and in conformance with administrative procedures. The State party thus contends that discrimination claims are without merit. 6.2 The State party notes that it tried to accelerate and facilitate the process legalizing the housing and obtaining certificates of ownership for all persons affected by the project, including the authors, in order to compensate them for their loss. The State party has provided an expropriation fund for the affected individuals’ houses. The State party notes that the Agency for the Legalization, Urbanization and Integration of Informal Zones and Buildings investigated the authors’ illegal dwellings. The agency found that only A.L.’s dwelling would not be affected by the project and could thus be legalized. The State party thus argues that there is no legal obstacle for the continuation of the legalization process for A.L.’s house. According to the State party, the remaining authors’ houses are disqualified from the legalization because of the implementation of the project and pursuant to the law on legalization. 6.3 The State party argues that under the domestic legal framework, individuals are provided with alternative accommodations or temporary shelter. There are special funds for expropriation that were created prior to the vacation of properties, of which the authors could have availed themselves. The authors’ claim that the State party is evicting them without compensation or alternative accommodation is thus baseless. The authors have had the opportunity to seek alternative housing and compensation through the avenues listed above. Specifically, the authors voluntarily signed agreements, on 5 August 2014, to vacate their houses on the condition that the State party provide them with a monthly housing benefit.15 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In their comments of 1 April 2015, 23 June 2015 and 18 January 2019, the authors point to relevant treaty body reports regarding the treatment of Roma in the State party with reference to their discrimination claims.16 To counter the State party’s arguments that the authors were not discriminated against in the present case on the basis of their Roma ethnicity, the authors point to the State party’s own action plans to dispel discrimination against Roma. 7.2 In their comments of 1 April 2015 and 2 November 2015, the authors reiterate that they had been told by the State party that their homes, with the exception of A.L.’s, were not eligible for legalization. Because of the lack of an appropriate remedy, the authors argue that there is a clear violation of articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant, which the State party has not addressed. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules and procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because, after receiving their eviction notices, the authors did not avail 15 16 6 Each author individually signed an agreement with the Mayor of Elbasan on 5 August 2014. E/C.12/ALB/CO/2-3, paras. 12–13, 24, 29 and 34; and CERD/C/ALB/CO/9-12, paras. 19–30. See also European Court of Human Rights, Case of Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 25446/06, Judgment, 24 April 2012, paras. 135–137; and UNDP, “Housing policies and practice for Roma in Albania: background study” (2013), p. 14.