CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 the owners. The difficulties and delays in the relocation are not related to the authors’ ethnic origin, but to the challenges faced by the authorities. 8.6 On 17 April 2015, the State party submitted further observations. Reiterating its arguments about the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it submits that the communication only concerns the 20 residents of the settlement who gave their authorization to the association to act on their behalf before the Committee. It advises that the authors have filed various applications to the domestic authorities, including an application for annulment of the second relocation decision, lodged on 20 May 2014 with the Council of State. It submits that some of these applications were presented after the submission of the communication to the Committee, which therefore constitutes a parallel track of litigation. 8.7 The State party argues that the authorities have made every effort to relocate the authors, including creating a working group to register residents of the settlement. As to the authors’ claims regarding the denial of legal aid, it notes that the authors did not substantiate why the State party should provide free legal aid in administrative law cases, and the authors did not allege any violation of article 14 of the Covenant in that regard. The State party considers that the authors have failed to demonstrate a link between the alleged denial and the violation of their rights. Further submissions by the authors 9.1 The authors provided further comments on 7 June and 10 August 2015. Regarding the allegation by the State party that the authors are pursuing parallel tracks of litigation, they indicate that the State party itself launched new procedures against them after the submission of the communication to the Committee. The State party’s argument that they did not exhaust domestic remedies therefore refers to measures taken after the presentation of their complaint to the Committee.52 The authors also submit that there are two sets of proceedings which, though related, are different: (a) the proceedings before the Committee in relation to the attempt to evict the authors, without the provision of alternative accommodation, before the communication was submitted (2013), as well as the inhuman conditions in which they have been living for 40 years; and (b) the pending remedies before the Council of State resulting from subsequent attempts by the State party to evict them without finding an adequate alternative solution (2014). Therefore, the motions of annulment before the Council of State, which is not competent to give an opinion on the legality of the threatened eviction of the authors in 2013 or on whether the legislation of the State party complies with the State party’s obligations deriving from international human rights treaties and standards, are not related to the subject matter before the Committee. 9.2 The authors reiterate that the I Elpida cultural association is entitled to represent all its members, and that residents of the settlement have provided an authorization for its Secretary-General, Nikolaos Katsaris, to represent them. They understand that the State party has accepted that the communication is admissible in respect of the 20 persons who provided their authorizations for the association to act on their behalf. They consider that the State party continues to present unsubstantiated arguments in relation to a lack of locus standi of the I Elpida cultural association to present a communication on behalf of its members. 9.3 The authors also claim that they have followed the established procedures for requesting free legal aid and indicate that the State party has not provided any evidence of 52 The authors refer to communication No. 868/1999, Wilson v. the Philippines, Views adopted on 30 October 2003, para. 6.3; and to the European Court of Human Rights, Karner v. Austria, application No. 40016/98, 24 July 2003, paras. 20-28. 13