CCPR/C/126/D/2582/2015 8.9 The Committee notes that while the author contends that the authorities acquiesced to occupation of the settlement by issuing decision No. 323 in 2005, according to the ThreeMember Misdemeanour Court of Patras this decision reflected a temporary measure to allow the authorities to provide alternative accommodation to the residents of Makrygianni, and the municipal authorities subsequently provided rent subsidies to the residents who were registered with the municipality. The Committee notes the court’s determination that many individuals then definitively abandoned the settlement to seek alternative accommodation. The Committee also notes the author’s statement that by the end of March 2006, public officials had issued statements advising that evictions would be carried out in Makrygianni, and that court proceedings had been recently initiated against “some or all” of the Roma living in those two settlements. The Committee also notes that the author has not indicated that basic public services were being provided to the settlement so as to indicate that the authorities had in effect consented to its existence. Indeed, the Committee notes the court’s finding that at the time of the demolition, the lack of sewage, garbage collection, running water and so on in Makrygianni posed serious threats to the health of both the Roma and non-Roma residents. While the Committee notes the author’s assertion that the court used this public health rationale as a pretext for evicting Roma, it notes that the author has not provided information contradicting the public health concerns, and has stated that the year after the demolition, the Patras health directorate issued a report declaring that living conditions in Makrygianni were unacceptable. 8.10 In the light of the totality of the aforementioned circumstances, the Committee considers that the information the author has provided is insufficient to substantiate his claims that at the time of the demolition, the shed constituted his home within the meaning of article 17 of the Covenant. In addition, with reference to the same circumstances, the Committee considers that the author has not provided adequate information to indicate that the authorities subjected him to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, knew or should have known of the existence of his family life in Makrygianni, or discriminated against him. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 7, 17 (1) and (2), 23 and 26 are inadmissible due to a lack of substantiation, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 12 The Committee therefore decides: