CCPR/C/126/D/2582/2015 international investigation or settlement, and that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. 8.3 In the absence of objections from the State party regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author, the Committee considers that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute a barrier to the admissibility of the communication. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that the communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission due to the lapse of time between various stages of proceedings. The Committee recalls that according to rule 99 (c) of its rules of procedure, a communication may constitute an abuse of the right of submission when it is submitted after five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author of the communication, or, where applicable, after three years from the conclusion of another procedure of international investigation or settlement, unless there are reasons justifying the delay, taking into account all the circumstances of the communication. 9 The Committee notes that as relevant to the present case, on 11 December 2012 the First Chamber of the Three-Member Misdemeanour Court of Patras acquitted the Mayor and Deputy Mayors of Patras of the charges relating to the author’s eviction from Makrygianni on 27 July 2006. The Committee notes that the State party considers this date to be irrelevant because the criminal proceedings could not have led to an outcome whereby the author would have been permitted to return to his claimed plot of land in Makrygianni. However, the Committee observes that in order to exhaust domestic remedies, the author is not necessarily required to have sought restitution to restore himself or herself to the position that he or she held prior to the commission of the alleged violation. Rather, the author must have raised, through all effective and available domestic mechanisms for redress, the substance of the claims that are the subject of the communication before the Committee. 10 The Committee also notes that the State party has not alleged that the author did not exhaust domestic remedies, or that he exhausted them on a different date. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s communication, presented on 26 January 2015, was submitted within five years from the exhaustion of domestic remedies on 11 December 2012, and does not constitute an abuse of the right of submission. 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is inadmissible due to a lack of substantiation, and that the author’s claims on behalf of the Roma people are inadmissible ratione materiae. The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 27 of the Covenant, that the State party frequently forcibly evicts Roma tentdwellers due to their particular socioeconomic condition and ethnic origin. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence stating that a person may not claim to be a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol unless either an act or an omission of a State party has already adversely affected his or her enjoyment of the claimed right, or such an effect is imminent, for example on the basis of existing law and/or judicial or administrative decision or practice.11 At the same time, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 23 (1994) on the rights of minorities, in which it recognizes that “although the rights protected under article 27 are individual rights, they depend in turn on the ability of the minority group to maintain its culture, language or religion”.12 In the present case, the Committee observes that the author does not specify why he considers that the State party violated his individual rights, considered in a collective dimension, to enjoy his own culture, profess his religion or use his language in community with other members of a minority group. It therefore considers that the author’s claim under article 27 of the Covenant is insufficiently substantiated and is therefore inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee notes the author’s claims that the State party violated his rights under article 17 (1) and (2) of the Covenant by arbitrarily evicting him from his home in Makrygianni. The Committee notes the serious concerns the author raises with regard to the general situation of Roma in the Riganokampos and Makrygianni settlements. Still, while the Committee is concerned by the author’s allegations of successively being evicted from 9 10 11 12 10 See also J.B. v. Australia (CCPR/C/120/D/2798/2016), para. 7.7. See, inter alia, Parra Corral v. Spain (CCPR/C/83/D/1356/2005), para. 4.2. See, inter alia, Beydon et al. v. France (CCPR/C/85/D/1400/2005), para. 4.3. See para. 6.2. See also Käkkäläjärvi et al. v. Finland (CCPR/C/124/D/2950/2017).