CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 country and that accepting such shelter also means accepting restrictive conditions. In addition, in practice there is hardly any chance of gaining access to the accommodation offered, even for irregular migrants who do wish to cooperate in leaving the country. Further information provided by the State party 10. On 20 September 2016, the State party reiterated its previous observations concerning the need for exhaustion of domestic remedies and the alleged impact on the author’s health of the Municipality’s decision to stop paying an allowance. It also informed the Committee that the author could still apply for accommodation in a VBL and that the only condition is to actively cooperate in departure. Finally it referred to the European Court of Human Rights’ decision of 5 July 2016 in the case of Hunde v. the Netherlands (application No. 17931/16), in which the Court stated that the fact that admission to VBL was subject to the condition that the applicant would cooperate in organising his departure to his country of origin could not, as such, be regarded as incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 11.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 11.2 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. 11.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the claims raised in the communication are in essence an invocation of social rights and that they are based on provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; that the author has been provided with basic needs by its authorities; and that, against this background, these claims are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant. The Committee observes, however, that, although the main facts of the communication are related to the author’s access to sufficient social benefits, they do not raise claims concerning the author’s rights to adequate housing and social security as such. Rather, the author claims that the lack of access to shelter and the allegedly insufficient benefits granted constitute, in the particular circumstances of his case as a person with HIV, a violation of his rights under the Covenant. In these circumstances, the communication is compatible with the provisions of the Covenant to the extent that it raises issues under articles 7, 17 and 26 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the present communication pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 11.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegations under articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant that, as a result of the State party’s decision to terminate his allowance owing to the lack of a valid residence permit and the subsequent refusal of shelter and social benefits while the proceedings concerning the renewal of his residence permit were pending, he has been unable to have a regular lifestyle and to follow adequately the medical treatment for HIV, and he lives with the anguish that this will ultimately affect the protective effect of the medication and cost him his life. The author submits that, by failing to take adequately into account his health conditions as a result of being HIV positive, the State party has violated his rights under articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant. 10