CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 before being provided with alternative accommodation. They consider that, as it did not seek to enforce the 1995 and 1996 eviction decisions, the State party implicitly acquiesced to their presence in “National Mint” for 17 years. Additionally, in order for them to be able to challenge the eviction decision, the State party should have launched new proceedings to evict them, which they could have challenged before the courts. The authors also note that the State party did not provide any examples of case law demonstrating that remedies would be available against the 1995 and 1996 eviction decisions. Concerning the State party’s submission that they should have challenged the demolition order of 26 February 2013 before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal, the authors indicate that in view of the previous decisions on the same matter by that court, in particular the rejection of their motion of annulment, which was issued on 12 November 2012,32 they had no prospect of success. They reiterate that they submitted a request to the Athens First Instance Prosecutor for the Environment to suspend the demolition until the relocation, but that they never received a reply. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 25 November 2013, the State party provided its observations on the merits of the communication. The State party reiterates that the Roma settlement is illegal, as it was constructed outside the urban planning zone and on private land, affecting the property rights of several persons, and that the competent authorities are therefore obliged to demolish it. The authorities complied with that obligation on 24 May 1996, when the demolition orders were issued. Those decisions became definitive because the authors failed to challenge them. The decisions have triggered a series of other decisions by judicial and administrative authorities, aimed at implementing them. 6.2 The State party indicates that it has adopted a two-track approach: (a) making every effort to identify suitable alternative accommodation for the Roma community affected; and (b) abstaining from enforcing the demolition orders until a temporary solution is found. Furthermore, there is an inextricable link between the obligation to restore the property rights of the owners and the obligation to ensure alternative temporary accommodation for the Roma concerned. 6.3 The State party submits that the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica has taken several actions to identify a suitable area for relocation, under relevant legislation33 designating him/her as the competent authority to identify areas for the temporary relocation of “itinerant persons”. On 16 April 2013, the SecretaryGeneral of the Decentralized Administration of Attica decided to relocate the authors in the Nomismatokopeio area of Halandri (hereinafter referred to in the present document as the first relocation decision). However that decision could not be implemented, because the residents of the area lodged an annulment motion before the Council of State alleging a drop in the value of their property. On 28 June 2013, the Council ordered the nonimplementation of the first relocation decision. In July 2013, the competent authorities notified the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica that the funding for implementing the relocation had not been approved. Consequently, the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica engaged in an effort to identify a new relocation area. On 31 July 2013, the environmental department in Attica inspected and recommended a plot of land — ABK 354 — located in the municipality of Megara. On 7 August 2013, the Mayor of Megara expressed his agreement and indicated that the municipality would provide water, electricity, transportation and primary health care to the Roma community. On 18 October 2013, the Secretary-General of the 32 33 See para. 2.3. Joint ministerial decision 23641/2003, which amended the 1983 sanitary provision on settlements of itinerant persons. 7