CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 requirements and preconditions had been met.16 The authors indicate that, as stated in the document, they were entirely satisfied with that decision. 2.7 Nonetheless, the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica had not suspended the execution of the decision of 26 February 2013. On 29 April 2013, the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica informed the authors’ counsel that he did not have the legal capacity or competence to suspend the execution of such a decision and that he could only do so if he received an order from another authority. On 30 April 2013, the above-mentioned Member of Parliament and the authors’ counsel met with the Athens First Instance Prosecutor for the Environment and requested her to issue a prosecutorial order suspending the demolition until the relocation had been completed. The authors claim that she was not eager to issue such an order, fearing that it would give the State party a reprieve that may delay the relocation indefinitely. 2.8 The authors submit that they did not have access to effective remedies to force the State party to implement the decisions favorable to their relocation and to suspend the decision of the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica of 26 February 2013.17 The authors submit that they should not be expected to take further legal actions “to ensure that the State party conforms to the decisions of its own authorities”.18 As shown by the decision of the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal of 12 November 2012,19 they could not use any other formal domestic remedy. They consider that a possible prosecutorial order to suspend the execution of the demolition decisions is not a formal remedy or a judicial decision, but a discretionary measure in the hands of the prosecutor. Such a prosecutorial order cannot provide any remedy that the property owners or the authors could use. The authors therefore submit that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that they are at risk of becoming homeless because of the State party’s failure to implement its own decision to relocate the settlement, using the financial crisis as an excuse for not doing so and putting them at risk of forced eviction. They refer to an April 2013 statement by the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, who noted that the State party should invest more in the prevention of homelessness in order to protect people under financial strain from losing their home.20 3.2 The authors recall the jurisprudence of the European Committee of Social Rights relating to the right to adequate housing of Roma people.21 In particular, they refer to a decision of 11 December 2009 against the State party,22 in which the European Committee 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 4 An unofficial translation of this decision has been provided. It states that the preconditions include that a census of the population and number of dwellings in the settlement is conducted, that identification of the land-planning and sanitation standards applicable is carried out, that a timetable of infrastructure completion is elaborated and that the funding is secured. See, in particular, the decision by the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica of 16 April 2013. The authors quote the Views adopted on 29 July 2010 in Georgopoulos and others v. Greece, communication No. 1799/2008, para. 6.4. See para. 2.3. See http://newsarchive.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13272&LangID=E. See article 16 of the European Social Charter. International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (INTERIGHTS) v. Greece, complaint No .49/2008.