CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 4.3 The State party also indicates that the authors have not exhausted all available domestic remedies, because the decisions to demolish the authors’ homes were taken in 1995 and 1996 and the authors did not challenge them before the competent courts. Furthermore, the State party submits that the authors did not challenge the decision of the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica of 26 February 2013, based on the argument that it was a mere confirmation of the demolition orders of 1995 and 1996, while they could have submitted an application for annulment together with a motion to suspend the execution of the demolition order to the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal.28 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 4 August 2013, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. While agreeing that the decision of 13 May 2013 had avoided them becoming homeless, they noted that the State party did not provide any time frame for implementation of the measures mentioned in its observations. They also submit that the Secretary-General of the Decentralized Administration of Attica can amend the decision of 13 May 2013 at any time, and therefore request the Committee to maintain the interim measures.29 5.2 In regard to the State party’s argument that the first author may not submit a communication to the Committee, the authors submit that an association of persons created to represent its members before the authorities on complicated matters has legal standing before the Committee. 30 They refer to the Views adopted by the Committee in Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, in which the Committee stated that there was “no objection to a group of individuals, who claim to be similarly affected, collectively to submit a communication about alleged breaches of their rights”. 31 They submit that the Halindri Roma community is a group of individuals who are similarly affected, and that they have provided the Committee with the statutes of the first author — the I Elpida cultural association — which list all its members, and provide its president, the second author, with the power to represent all of them. 5.3 As regards the State party’s argument that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, the authors submit that the eviction decisions of 1995 and 1996 were not executed because the authorities decided in 1999 to suspend all evictions until the Roma community could be relocated. The authors submit that they therefore stayed in the settlement for 17 years with the legitimate expectation that they would not be evicted 28 29 30 31 6 The State party indicates that the second author and other residents of the settlement followed this course of action in the past, as they submitted a motion of annulment and a request for suspension of the demolition order of 4 September 2012. Although the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the motion, this did not relieve the authors from submitting a similar application against the demolition order of 26 February 2013, as the relocation decision of 16 April 2013 constituted a new element which could have had an impact on the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal’s decision. The authors refer to the sports facility located in the area designated for their relocation and express concern regarding the possibility that the opposition of “local society” to its destruction or transfer could have, as a consequence, the decision of 16 April 2013 ordering their relocation to the site becoming inapplicable. The authors refer to Hartikainen v. Finland, in which the Committee stated that the Secretary-General of an association could have submitted a communication “if he had provided the names and addresses of the persons he claimed to represent, together with information as to his authority to act on their behalf” (para. 3). Communication No. 167/1984, decision of admissibility adopted on 22 July 1987, para. 32.1. The authors also referred to communication No. 38/2006, Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma et al. v. Germany, decision adopted on 22 February 2008; and European Court of Human Rights, Gorraiz Lizarraga and others v. Spain, application No. 62543/00, 27 April 2004.