CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016 According to the authors, they contacted the owner of the building, who allowed them to stay until 9 November 2015. 2.6 Nevertheless, on 7 November 2015, in the afternoon, both State and municipal police officials arrived at the scene and asked the authors to leave, arguing that the owner had contacted them and requested their eviction. Counsel for the authors were alerted and went to the place. Their requests to the police to produce a court decision or other documents authorizing the authors’ eviction were not answered, with the police officer in command merely repeating that the owner had produced documents at the police station proving that the property was his and that he wanted to have the Roma settlement evicted. 2.7 Intimidated by the heavy police presence, the authors decided to leave at around 6 p.m., following an offer by the municipality to help them move their belongings to another informal Roma settlement in the area of Bregu i Lumit. In the late evening of 7 November 2015, the temperature dropped to 3º C. The authors consider that the difficult conditions and the lack of any infrastructure in Bregu i Lumit (literally “at the bank of the river”) 6 demonstrate that the main motive of the municipality in helping them move there was to ensure that they would not “taint” the image of the city centre by their presence. 2.8 In mid-December 2015, the ombudsman of Albania launched a special report on the displacement of the Roma/Egyptian community established in the area of the artificial lake that corroborated the authors’ allegations. The ombudsman concluded that the eviction of the Roma community was unlawful under domestic law as no administrative decision to that effect had been adopted, nor had the ownership status of the land been previously ascertained. 2.9 The authors claim that they did not have at their disposal adequate and effective remedies to challenge and suspend their eviction or obtain alternative accommodation. 7 The complaint 3.1 The authors submit that Albania has violated their rights under articles 2, 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 of the Covenant by forcibly evicting them from the Roma settlements, demolishing their informal accommodation and failing to provide them with emergency alternative housing. 3.2 Concerning article 7, the authors refer to the decision of the Committee against Torture on communication No. 161/2000, in which the Committee found that the destruction of houses belonging to Roma amounted to a violation of article 16 (1) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 8 The authors also refer to a growing body of international case law from various judicial bodies indicating that the destruction of houses might amount, under certain circumstances, to inhuman and 6 7 8 The authors refer to a video shot in November 2014 and photographs, available on the website www.oranews.tv, that give a good indication of the conditions prevailing in the settlement of Bregu i Lumit. In a supplementary submission of 18 July 2016, the authors reported that on 25 April 2016 one of their lawyers, Mr. Matlija, had filed a criminal complaint regarding the second eviction that took place on 7 November 2015, arguing that the actions of the police were illegal as they were not based on a judicial decision and were contrary to article 248 (abuse of office) and 250 (commission of arbitrary actions) of the Albanian Criminal Code. During the ensuing investigation, the prosecutor invited, among others, the property’s owner to testify. In his statement, the owner (a) confirmed that he had not contacted the police to ask for their assistance to remove Roma families staying on the property without his permission; and (b) produced a copy of his title to the land on which the Roma were squatting. On 24 May 2016, the Tirana prosecutor’s office issued a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers. Although the decision could be challenged before the first instance court of Tirana or the higher prosecutor, the authors did not file a complaint as they considered that it had no chance of success. Furthermore, they do not consider that, in the context of their complaint, a criminal remedy would constitute an adequate and effective remedy that had to be exhausted before bringing their complaint to the Committee. Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro, decision adopted on 21 November 2002. 3