CCPR/C/126/D/2582/2015 must be carried out upon orders from the appropriate town planning office. It was also stated in the indictment that the defendants had aimed to harm the Roma living in the shacks, and to beautify the area for the benefit of the non-Roma residents of the area. 2.5 On 11 December 2012, all defendants were acquitted of the charges at a trial before the First Chamber of the Three-Member Misdemeanour Court of Patras. In its judgment, the court noted that the Makrygianni settlement was located on public property. The court stated: “Regarding the makeshift home which [the author] used occasionally, it was established that he did not own it lawfully, nor was he so using it. Moreover, at the material time (27 July 2006), this makeshift home gave the impression that it was deserted, since [the author] was away for many months in Zakynthos, looking for employment. His intention to return to the settlement could not be known to any person.” 2.6 The court further stated in its judgment that the defendants had not intended to harm the Roma families or illegally provide a benefit to non-Roma residents of the area who had complained about the presence of the Roma. Rather, their actions had been motivated by public health concerns for both Roma and non-Roma residents. The court considered that the absence of sewage, running water and garbage collection posed grave dangers to the health of both the Roma and nearby residents. The court also noted that the right to housing applied to all without discrimination, and considered that there was no evidence that the defendants had aimed to frustrate the right to housing of the Roma residents. The court reasoned that the municipality of Patras had already provided rent subsidies to many Roma living in Makrygianni and Riganokampos to secure adequate living conditions for them. In addition, the municipality had provided food to the Roma through the Food Bank, and had given them grants. According to the court, this demonstrated that the municipality had an interest in the Roma as a social group, and had sought to balance the conflicting interests of the Roma who were illegally settled and were living in miserable conditions and non-Roma residents who suffered from the unacceptable sanitary conditions prevailing in the settlements next to their houses. 2.7 The author contends that despite the negative court decision, the defendants’ demolition of his home was a doubly unlawful operation insofar as: (a) no alternative accommodation was provided; and (b) the authority to demolish homes was vested in the town planning services, not in the defendants, who were municipal employees. The decision of the court failed to explain why no adequate alternative housing was offered to the author before the demolition of his home. 2.8 According to the author, the initial judicial investigation was biased, as the Patras prosecutors declined to indict high-ranking municipal officials, and the authorities hated the Roma people. During the trial, the public health rationale was set forth not by the prosecutor, but by the judges. The Greek legal framework precludes the mandatory provision of an effective remedy to the Roma, since it is within the discretion of prosecutors and judges to prosecute and convict individuals who are clearly involved in forced evictions of Roma, and since there is no specific legal provision punishing such evictions. This system explains why the Greek courts have never convicted anyone of forcibly evicting Roma individuals. The author cites various reports in support of his arguments that the Greek authorities have failed to effectively provide Roma with justice and adequate housing. The author contends that the Committee should follow the approach it took in its Views on Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece (CCPR/C/99/D/1799/2008), which involved nearly identical facts. 2.9 The author has exhausted domestic remedies because it is not possible to appeal against the decision of the Three-Member Misdemeanour Court of Patras. Moreover, there is no legal remedy that would have allowed the author to avoid eviction or to obtain government compensation or emergency alternative accommodation. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that by arbitrarily evicting him from the Makrygianni settlement on 27 July 2006, demolishing his home, and failing to provide him with emergency alternative accommodation or compensation, the State party violated his rights under 3