CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 11.5 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that living in subhuman conditions for over 12 years because of the action of the State party, as well as the threat of being forcibly evicted, constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also notes the State party’s affirmation that such claims are illfounded, as there has been no eviction and measures have been taken to improve the living conditions in the settlement. The Committee notes that none of the eviction decisions have been implemented and that the authors’ allegations in that regard are general and do not explain the reasons why they consider that the conditions referred to and the threat of being forcibly evicted amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that the authors’ claims in this regard have been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 11.6 Regarding the authors’ allegations under article 14 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors have not substantiated their claim that the State party should provide free legal aid in administrative law cases. The Committee also notes that the authors have not provided any information in this regard, and therefore considers that the authors’ allegations of violation of article 14 are inadmissible for lack of substantiation. 11.7 As regards the alleged violation of article 26 of the Covenant, in that the State party has failed to respect the non-discrimination principle by forcing the authors to live in degrading and inhuman conditions because of a delay of more than 12 years in providing them with adequate housing, while other ethnic or vulnerable groups have received preferential treatment, the Committee notes that these allegations have not been raised before the national authorities and courts. In such circumstances, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.58 11.8 In relation to the alleged violation of article 27, related to the failure of the State party to ensure the rights of the Roma community, as there continue to be insufficient permanent dwellings of an adequate standard available for the Roma population, the Committee notes that these allegations are general and do not provide any explanation as to the reasons why the authors consider that their rights under such article have been violated. It therefore considers that the authors’ claims under article 27 of the Covenant are not sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 11.9 Accordingly, and in the absence of other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible inasmuch as it raises concerns under articles 2, 17 and 23 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 12.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the Roma settlement is located on private land and that the authorities have the obligation of demolishing it in order to restore the property rights of the owners. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that it has never approved the Roma community’s remaining in the settlement, and that it has not encouraged such behaviour but has rather followed a two-track approach consisting of making every effort to identify a suitable alternative to relocate the Roma 58 16 1382/2005, Salikh v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 30 March 2009, para. 6.3; and No. 2041/2011, Dorofeev v. Russian Federation, Views adopted on 11 July 2014, para. 9.6. See communication No. 2073/2011, Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria, Views adopted on 30 October 2012, para. 13.6.