CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 taken on their behalf before the Committee. The Committee takes note of the authors’ affirmation that the Halindri Roma community is a group of individuals who claim to be similarly affected and that the I Elpida cultural association is entitled to represent all its members. The Committee also takes note of article 10 of the association’s statutes, according to which “the president of the board of directors represents the association in all its relations with authorities and courts”. 56 Accordingly, the Committee notes that the statutes only provide the president with the power to represent the association, but not its members individually. The Committee also notes that the authors have provided the authorization given to the association by 20 persons for action to be taken on their behalf before the Committee. The Committee therefore considers that the communication is admissible with respect to those 20 persons and the second author, and that it is not precluded under article 2 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 11.4 Regarding the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as some remedies are pending before the domestic courts, in particular the authors’ motion of annulment submitted to the Council of State against the second relocation decision, the Committee notes that the State party has advised that the Council of State issued a decision on the matter in February 2016. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the authors are pursuing parallel tracks of litigation, as well as the authors’ argument regarding the existence of two sets of procedures: those related to the attempted eviction before the communication was submitted (2013), and those resulting from subsequent eviction attempts initiated by the State party after the submission of the communication (2014). The Committee notes that the communication refers to the procedures related to the demolition order scheduled to be enforced on 14 May 2013, which was issued by the State party. It also notes that the domestic authorities issued several decisions thereafter, in particular the second relocation decision of 18 October 2013, against which the authors have taken legal action. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies as they did not challenge the eviction decisions of 1995 and 1996, which were the only executable orders. The Committee also takes note of the authors’ submission that for 17 years, the State party did not seek to enforce such orders, and that in 1999 the authorities decided to suspend the eviction so as to first relocate the authors. A distinction remains necessary as to the remedies available with regard to the 1995 and 1996 eviction decisions, and those related to the subsequent orders, which constitute implementation measures of the 1995 and 1996 eviction decisions. Taking into account the different nature of such orders, different remedies should be identified and applied. In this regard, the Committee notes that several demolition orders have been issued since those of 1995 and 1996, in particular on 4 September 2012, 26 February 2013 and 8 November 2014, and that, according to the State party, the authors did not submit a motion of annulment to the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal against the demolition order of 26 February 2013 and therefore domestic remedies were not exhausted. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim that such remedy had no prospect of success, given that the Court had declared the authors’ motion of annulment against the demolition order of 4 September 2012 inadmissible. The Committee further notes that according to the information available, no remedy has been available as regards the 1995 and 1996 eviction decisions. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is only necessary to exhaust those remedies that have a reasonable prospect of success,57 and therefore concludes that there is no obstacle to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 56 57 Informal translation. See, for example, communications No. 701/1996, Gómez Vázquez v. Spain, Views adopted on 20 July 2000, para. 10.1; No. 986/2001, Semey v. Spain, Views adopted on 30 July 2003, para. 8.2; No. 15