CCPR/C/126/D/2582/2015 this issue, counsel for the author does not explain why neither the author nor his counsel has contacted the appropriate authorities. The State party disputes the author’s argument that it is pointless for lawfully resident foreign nationals such as the author to seek assistance from municipal authorities. 6.3 The communication contains no substantiated information about the author’s housing situation after the disputed events of 2006. This information is relevant in ascertaining whether the author became homeless after the alleged eviction. This is all the more important given that the author has never submitted in person any request to the appropriate authorities regarding his housing situation. It is misleading of the author to portray himself as a victim of successive evictions pursuant to a State policy of forced evictions targeting Roma. These allegations are not corroborated. The author’s request for renewal of his residence permit, which expired on 7 August 2008, was denied on 5 March 2014 because the author had not provided the required documents. As a result, the author was requested to voluntarily leave the country. 6.4 The demolition of a makeshift home, reasonably assumed to have been abandoned by the author, who was absent from the settlement for several months, does not constitute treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. Regarding articles 26 and 27 of the Covenant, the author did not provide any evidence of discrimination on any ground. The alleged evictions were unrelated to the author’s ethnic origin. With respect to article 2 of the Covenant, the author did not in any way pursue domestic remedies before a judicial or non-judicial authority, with the exception of his request to be admitted as a civil party in criminal proceedings against the officials of the municipality, for moral damages only. The author has not lodged an action to seek material damages. During domestic proceedings, counsel claimed that the material damage allegedly sustained was of the order of €100. The amount that the author actually sought, for moral damages, did not exceed €40. 6.5 The author’s statement that he lived with his family in the Athens area when the communication was submitted is vague. It appears he is withholding relevant information regarding his address. In a similar communication submitted by the same counsel, counsel stated the current place of residence of the individual authors. 7 6.6 The author’s explanations for the delays in submitting the communication are unconvincing. This is particularly true regarding the seven-year delay following the submission of the nearly identical Georgopoulos communication. The author states that he would not have had any reason to submit the communication if the municipal officers had been convicted during domestic proceedings. It therefore appears that the author’s true purpose in submitting the communication is not to challenge his alleged eviction, but rather to contest the decision to acquit the criminal defendants. It is not reasonable that the author waited for the conclusion of criminal proceedings to submit the present communication, which concerns an urgent matter of alleged forced eviction without relocation. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In comments dated 22 February 2016, the author reiterates his arguments and maintains that his case is virtually identical to the Georgopoulos matter: there, one criminal trial was held for both cases. The court concluded that evictions had taken place, including the demolition of the homes of the two families, and that those evictions had been carried out by unauthorized municipal authorities, who had disregarded the applicable laws. However, the court acquitted the defendants, citing an alleged overriding public health concern that supposedly absolved the municipal authorities of their actions. This demonstrates extreme anti-Roma racism. A public health threat should be resolved through infrastructure and other works to improve living conditions, not through arbitrary demolition of Roma housing. In a decision on 11 December 2009, the European Committee of Social Rights considered that the forced evictions of Roma in Patras, Votanikos and Chania had violated article 16 of the European Social Charter, insofar as there was no prior consultation, adequate notice or provision of alternative accommodation in many of the 7 The State party refers to I Elpida et al. v. Greece (CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013). 7