CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 community affected. The Committee further notes that the State party has taken several actions aimed at finding alternative housing for the Halandri Roma community, in particular the decision by the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica of 16 April 2013 or first relocation decision, and his decision of 18 October 2013 or second relocation decision. The Committee notes that these relocation decisions have not been implemented, and that the State party affirms that such enforcement would only take place if the rights enshrined in the Covenant were ensured. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim that the authorities have taken actions that are in contravention of their obligations under the Covenant, as such orders have not taken into account the needs of the people affected and no effective measures have been taken to relocate them. 12.3 The Committee recalls that the term “home”, used in article 17 of the Covenant, refers to the place where a person resides or carries out his usual occupation. 59 In the present communication, it is undisputed that the Halandri settlement is where the authors’ houses are situated and where they have continuously resided unchallenged by the State party’s authorities for over 20 years. In these circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that the authors’ houses in the Halandri settlement are their “homes” within the meaning of article 17 of the Covenant, irrespective of the fact that the authors are not the lawful owners of the plot of land on which the houses were constructed. 12.4 The Committee must then determine whether the authors’ eviction and the demolition of their houses would constitute a violation of article 17 of the Covenant if the eviction order were to be enforced. There is no doubt that the eviction order, if enforced, would result in the authors’ losing their homes and that, therefore, there would be interference with their homes. The Committee recalls that, under article 17 of the Covenant, it is necessary for any interference with the home not only to be lawful but also not to be arbitrary. In accordance with its general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation, the Committee considers that the concept of arbitrariness in article 17 of the Covenant is intended to guarantee that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.60 It also considers that States parties should limit the use of forced eviction through the adoption of all feasible alternatives to eviction, and should guarantee alternative housing for families affected. 12.5 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that the Halandri settlement existed unchallenged by the State party’s authorities for over 20 years before the eviction orders of 1995 and 1996, and that none of the relocation alternatives proposed by the authorities since the beginning of the eviction procedures in 1995 have been accepted by the competent authorities or been implemented. The Committee also notes that, although the State party’s authorities are in principle entitled to remove the authors, who occupy private land unlawfully, the authors’ lack of property rights over the plot of land in question was the only stated justification for the issuance of the eviction order against the community and the State party has not identified any urgent reason for forcibly evicting the authors from their homes before providing them with adequate alternative accommodation. Additionally, the eviction decisions were taken and confirmed on the basis of a decision by the urban planning authorities that the Roma housing in that area was illegal and had to be demolished, regardless of any special circumstances such as decades-old community life, or of any possible consequences such as homelessness, and in the absence of any pressing need to change the status quo. In other words, the State party’s authorities did not give 59 60 Ibid., para. 14.2. Ibid., para. 14.3. See also communications No. 1510/2006, Vojnović v. Croatia, Views adopted on 30 March 2009, para. 8.5; and No. 687/1996, Rojas García v. Colombia, Views adopted on 3 April 2001, para. 10.3. 17