CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016 not demonstrate that the remedies of reference would have been unlikely to bring effective relief. It further notes that the administrative body to which the complaint could have been addressed can review the legality and appropriateness of the challenged act and, in case of disagreement, the parties concerned can further appeal to the administrative court. In this connection, although an express prohibition of forced eviction if not accompanied by the provision of alternative housing was not part of the legislation at the time of the authors’ eviction, the actions of the municipality as an administrative body could have been challenged under general administrative proceedings. The Committee further notes that the authors instead filed a criminal complaint against the actions of the police in relation to their eviction, but observes that this complaint is not related to the issue of the eviction as such but as to the way the police authorities carried out the process. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to their claims that their forced eviction and the demolition of their dwellings constituted a violation of their rights under articles 2, 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional (b) authors. That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the 9