CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 sufficient weight to the various interests involved and to protecting the authors from the threat of immediate eviction. 12.6 The Committee notes that for two decades the State party’s authorities did not take any measure to dislodge the authors from the Halandri settlement. Moreover, despite the issuance of various expropriation orders since 1995-1996, the community has remained at its present location for over 10 years thereafter. While the informal occupants cannot claim an entitlement to remain indefinitely, the authorities’ failure to identify an appropriate relocation site has resulted in the authors developing strong links with the Halandri settlement and building a community life there. 12.7 The Committee also notes that, according to the February 2016 decision of the Council of State, which quashed the second relocation decision, the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica is no longer competent to take any decisions concerning the authors’ relocation, but can still enforce the eviction and demolition orders issued against them. It also notes that the State party has not provided any information as to which authority is now competent to take decisions relating to the relocation of the authors. They therefore remain under a permanent risk of forced eviction without secure and appropriate relocation options, and without any clarity as to their prospects in terms of housing, which amounts to a clear interference with their family life. 12.8 In the light of the long history of the authors’ undisturbed presence in the Halandri settlement, the Committee considers that, by not giving due consideration to the consequences of the authors’ eviction, such as the risk of them becoming homeless, in a situation in which satisfactory replacement housing is not immediately available to them, the State party would interfere arbitrarily with the authors’ homes, and thereby violate the authors’ rights under article 17 of the Covenant, if it enforced the eviction order. 13. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party would interfere arbitrarily with the authors’ homes and family life,61 and thereby violate the authors’ rights under articles 17 and 23,62 read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant, if it enforced the eviction and demolition orders against the authors so long as satisfactory replacement housing is not immediately available to them. 14. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to refrain from executing the eviction and demolition orders so long as satisfactory replacement housing is not available. 15. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s Views and to have them widely disseminated in its official language. 61 62 18 See communication No. 35/1978, Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and others v. Mauritius, Views adopted on 9 April 1981, para. 9.2. See communication No. 1799/2008, Georgopoulos and others v. Greece, Views adopted on 29 July 2010, para. 7.3.