CCPR/C/126/D/2582/2015 different settlements in both Patras and Athens, it may only examine the author’s rights with respect to the eviction from Makrygianni in 2006, for which the author pursued a domestic remedy and which forms the subject of the present communication. Accordingly, the preliminary issue before the Committee is not the general housing situation of Roma or the author in the Greek settlements, but the specific situation of whether the author has substantiated his claim that the shed in Makrygianni constituted his home on 27 July 2006, for the purposes of article 17 of the Covenant. 8.7 The Committee recalls that the concept of “home” within the meaning of article 17 of the Covenant refers to the place where a person resides or carries out her or his usual occupation.13 A “home” is therefore not limited to premises which are lawfully occupied or which have been lawfully established under domestic law, nor is it limited to traditional residences or fixed abodes.14 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence indicating that whether a place of residence or usual occupation constitutes a “home” that attracts the protection of article 17 depends on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of continuous, unchallenged occupation of the specific place in question.15 While daily physical presence at the home is not required, an individual must demonstrate credible evidence of occupation of the home.16 If the individual is voluntarily absent at the time of the alleged interference, it must be shown that ties to the home have not been severed. Moreover, in the absence of any claim to a legal interest in the home, the individual’s links to the home must arise from evidence of unchallenged occupation or carrying out of his usual occupation for a period of time.17 8.8 In assessing whether the shed in Makrygianni constituted the author’s “home” for the purposes of article 17, the Committee notes the author’s statements that he had moved to Makrygianni two years before the demolition, had been using the shed seasonally, and was residing for the summer on the island of Zakynthos at the time of the demolition. The Committee takes note of the author’s assertion that it was customary for some Roma to leave the settlement during the summer, and that the State party’s authorities knew he would return to it. However, the Committee notes that the author had not informed the authorities that he was living in the Makrygianni settlement, and had provided to the authorities a different address for his residence permit. The author has not explained why he did not inform the municipal authorities that he was living there, before or after the demolition. The Committee also notes that the author has not provided information to contradict the finding of the Three-Member Misdemeanour Court of Patras that the shed, in which he did not have a legal interest, appeared to have been deserted at the time of the demolition. The author has not alleged that he left at the shed any personal belongings or other signs of occupation to indicate that it was claimed as a residence at the material time. While noting the author’s information that one of the Deputy Mayors stated during the criminal trial that the author should have been reporting to the police in Patras during 2005 and 2006, the Committee considers that the author has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the authorities knew or should have known that he resided in the Makrygianni settlement. The Committee also notes the State party’s uncontested argument that the author’s civil claim in the context of the criminal proceedings was for moral, not material, damages. The Committee observes that the author has not asserted that he suffered material damages, and has not alleged to have developed strong community ties linking him to Makrygianni. While the author relies upon the Committee’s Views in Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece, the Committee notes that the authors in that case had been born in the settlement from which they were evicted, had always lived there apart from for seasonal employment elsewhere, and had immediately contacted the municipal authorities to seek an administrative remedy after learning of their eviction. 13 14 15 16 17 See the Committee’s general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy, para. 5. See also I Elpida et al. v. Greece, para. 12.3. I Elpida et al. v. Greece, para. 12.3. Ibid.; and Naidenova v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011), para. 14.2. I Elpida et al. v. Greece, para. 12.3. S.I.D. et al v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/111/D/1926/2010), para. 8.4; I Elpida et al. v. Greece, paras. 12.3 and 12.6; and Naidenova v. Bulgaria, para. 14.2. 11