CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 11.5 The Committee observes that it is only called upon to determine whether the State party violated the author’s rights under the Covenant while the proceedings concerning the renewal of his residence permit were pending owing to the alleged lack of access to sufficient social benefits. In that regard, it observes that, as a consequence of the refusal to renew his residence permit, on 23 March 2011 the Municipality informed the author that his payment benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act would be terminated. Nevertheless, the author has continued to receive medical treatment and drugs for the treatment of HIV free of charge and a monthly allowance of between €375 and €450 from the Municipality. According to the undisputed findings of the proceedings, the author has been able to stay with various friends or to rent a room to live in. Moreover, on 28 March 2014 the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers offered him shelter in the Tel Apel centre, which the author voluntarily decided not to take, alleging that doing so would result in restrictive measures being imposed on him. In that connection, the Committee observes that the offer contained in the Central Agency’s e-mail of 28 March 2014 (provided by the author) made no mention of restrictive measures. The State party has indicated that in general the freedom of movement of people residing in restricted accommodation is limited to the municipality in which the facility is located. However, even if the access to shelter required that the author accept this restriction, he has not explained how such a restriction would affect his medical treatment for HIV so negatively as to put his health or life at serious risk. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate the claim that he has suffered a violation of articles 7 and 17 of the Covenant and, therefore, that the allegations are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 11.6 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation of a violation of article 26 based on the denial of his request for shelter and benefits owing to his lack of a valid residence permit, which amounts to different treatment vis-à-vis aliens with similar medical conditions who hold a residence permit. The Committee considers, however, that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 26 and declares this part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 12. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the communication. 11