CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 The author’s basic needs and medical care are covered: he receives medication for the treatment of HIV free of charge and shelter in a restrictive accommodation is available to him; in such accommodation, he would also have access to medical care. In the various domestic proceedings, the State party authorities, including judicial organs, carried out an assessment of the author’s health situation as a result of being HIV positive and, on the basis of medical advice and the author’s actual circumstances, concluded that his situation did not constitute a medical emergency that would require his applications for supplementary support to be granted. 8.13 With respect to the author’s allegations under article 26 of the Covenant, the State party submits that drawing a distinction for access to shelter and social benefits on the basis of residence status is justified in so far as that distinction aims to enable the State party to pursue its immigration policy with a view to protecting its economic well-being. The principle of linking social entitlements to residence status aims to prevent persons who are residing in the State party unlawfully from being enable to prolong their residence through, inter alia, the provision of social assistance. It is also intended to prevent persons residing in the State party unlawfully from establishing the appearance of lawful residence or establishing such a strong legal position (or the appearance thereof) that once their procedure is complete it will be virtually impossible to expel them. An absolute obligation to treat aliens without legal residence status on an equal basis with nationals and individuals who have been admitted to the country would deprive States of the possibility of pursuing an immigration policy that protects the country’s economic well-being. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 9.1 On 1 August 2016, the author provided his comments on the State party’s observations. He argues that the communication meets the admissibility requirements established by the Optional Protocol. As to the State party’s argument that the author failed to exhaust all domestic remedies in the procedures related to his application for a residence permit, he submits that the procedures are not relevant for determining whether all domestic remedies have been exhausted since they do not adjudicate his claims concerning access to shelter, which is the matter raised in the communication in question. 9.2 With regard to the proceedings in relation to access to shelter, the author argues that the judgment of the Hague District Court of 18 July 2014 (see para. 6.2) was a repetition of a procedure that ended with a final judgment on 19 March 2014 (see para. 5.1). Given the finding of the Court that the author had no legal interest in bringing proceedings forward and the short period of time that had elapsed since then, an appeal against the judgment of 18 July 2014 would have resulted in a similar decision. As to the proceedings that ended with the judgment of the Hague District Court of 11 June 2015 (see para. 8.5), the author claims that an appeal would not have led to relief since the Council of State deals with issues of law exclusively. Many similar cases previously submitted to the Council of State were dismissed after the Council found that they did not raise issues of law. An appeal would have been declared inadmissible. 9.3 The author submits that his communication raises claims concerning rights enshrined in the Covenant. Therefore, it is not incompatible with the Covenant. 9.4 The author reiterates that he is a vulnerable person as a result of being HIV positive. Although he receives medication for the treatment of HIV, the success of the treatment depends on, for example, the patient taking the medication at the prescribed time and storing it in a fridge. Since he is not able to comply with such requirements owing to the lack of sufficient support by the State party, the treatment will not be effective for long. 9.5 The author reiterates that the facilities to which the State party refers as possible shelter for irregular migrants are only available to aliens who are willing to leave the 9