CCPR/C/118/D/2299/2013 failure to provide him with an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and shelter, constitutes a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 2 3.3 The author maintains that his rights under article 17 have been violated by the failure of the State party’s authorities to provide adequate and sufficient help and to take into account his illness and personal needs while assessing his request for shelter and benefits. He argues that his request for shelter as a form of primary health care falls under the rights established by article 17 of the Covenant. Although article 10 (2) of the Immigration Act of 2000 provides that an alien without a residence permit has the right to receive the necessary medical care, in practice the State party’s authorities and its courts have limited that right to access to medicines. Moreover, the fact that the State party refused to provide shelter and benefits on the basis of medical advice indicating that the author did not need to be placed in a sick bay shows the inadequacy of the assessment made by the authorities concerning the request lodged by a person with HIV. Finally, the author argues that the authorities have implicitly recognized that he is in need of special assistance. Between 2007 and 2011, when he had a residence permit, they gave him social benefits. Afterwards, although they denied his request for social benefits, he continued to receive €375 per month (an amount that was not, however, sufficient for the author’s subsistence). Accordingly, the State party’s decision to terminate his benefits and the subsequent refusal to provide shelter constitute an arbitrary interference in his private life. 3.4 As to his claim under article 26 of the Covenant, the author alleges that the denial of his request for shelter and benefits was based on his lack of a residence permit. This involves a different treatment vis-à-vis other aliens with similar medical conditions, who hold a residence permit. As a result, he is forced to live in unacceptable conditions, putting his health at serious risk. Additional factual information provided by the parties 4. By a note verbale dated 9 April 2014, the State party informed the Committee that on 28 March 2014 the author was notified that he would receive accommodation for the duration of the proceedings related to his request for residence and that such accommodation had, since then, been provided to him by the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers. Accordingly, the State party requested the Committee to discontinue its examination of the present communication. 5.1 On 17 April 2014, the author informed the Committee that he had not received any accommodation from the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers and opposed the State party’s request for discontinuance. He argued that his requests for accommodation to the Central Agency in 2011 and 2013 had all been rejected and that the Hague District Court and the Council of State had denied his appeals on 23 or 24 December 2013 and on 19 March 2014, respectively. 5.2 The author points out that on 21 March 2014 he received a letter from the Secretary of State for Security and Justice and the Director of Migration Policy informing him that foreigners without a residence permit, including persons with medical conditions, could apply to the Return and Departure Service for shelter in a liberty-restricting location. According to the author, under article 56 of the Aliens Act of 2000, sojourn in a libertyrestricting location would include the imposition of restrictive measures and the foreigner would have to cooperate with the authorities on his or her departure. On 28 March 2014, 2 The communication also makes reference to articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ general comment No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health and the jurisprudence of the European Committee of Social Rights, Defence for Children International v. Netherlands, complaint No. 47/2008, para. 47. 5