CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 of Social Rights found a violation of the right to adequate housing of several Roma families who had been forcibly evicted from their homes, on the grounds that evictions should take place only if they are in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, which should be sufficiently protective of the rights of the persons concerned.23 The authors also refer to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee on the matter, in particular Georgopoulos and others v. Greece, 24 considering that it is applicable to their situation, in so far as, similarly to the communication mentioned, the authors have an expectation of non-eviction pending relocation, based on the annulment in 1999 of the demolition of their lodgings, which was then confirmed by subsequent decisions, in particular the decision of the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica of 16 April 2013. They therefore consider that their eviction without a prior solution would constitute an arbitrary and unlawful interference with their home and would have an adverse and irreparable impact on their family life, in violation of articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant.25 3.3 The authors claim that they have lived for over 12 years in substandard and inhuman conditions, believing that they should stay in the settlement until their relocation. They consider that this amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. They also indicate that if the forced eviction planned for 14 May 2013 is carried out, they will become homeless, and that this would amount to another violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 The authors also submit that there is no other ethnic group in the State party than the Roma who have been forced to live in degrading and inhuman conditions because a delay of more than 12 years has elapsed without their need for adequate housing being met and therefore consider that they are victims of discrimination, in violation of articles 26, 27 and 2 (1) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 9 July 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication. It advised that on 13 May 2013, the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica had issued a decision postponing the eviction and the demolition of the authors’ homes until an alternative place for relocation had been found. It considered that the interim measures issued by the Human Rights Committee were no longer necessary, as the domestic authorities had taken measures to ensure that the authors were not rendered homeless, which included a study on infrastructure and a timetable for its implementation which would be submitted to the Attica Regional Development Fund in order to secure funding for the authors’ relocation.26 4.2 It also submitted that the first author, being an association, could not submit communications to the Committee, under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.27 23 24 25 26 27 The authors indicate that forced evictions should be conducted with prior consultation, adequate notice and the provision of alternative accommodation. European Committee of Social Rights, European Roma Rights Centre v. Greece, complaint No. 15/2003, 8 December 2004. Communication No. 1799/2008, Views adopted on 29 July 2010. The authors also refer to CCPR/CO/83/GRC. The authors quote Georgopoulos and others v. Greece, communication No. 1799/2008, Views adopted on 29 July 2010, paras. 3.4 to 3.7. The State party indicates that there is a new element it was not aware of: the existence of a sports facility in the area designated for the relocation which is very much appreciated by “local society”. It quotes the Views adopted by the Committee on 1 April 2004 in communication No. 1002/2001, Wallmann et al. v. Austria, and on 9 April 1981 in communication No. 40/1978, Hartikainen v. Finland. 5