CCPR/C/127/D/2438/2014 Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 1 April, 22 May and 23 June 2015, on 29 March 2016 and on 18 January and 21 August 2019, the authors, responding to the State party’s observations on the merits, reiterated their position on the admissibility of their communication. The authors submit that there are no effective remedies for them to exhaust. A series of evictions of Roma and Egyptian communities had taken place in Tirana in February 2011, January 2012 and August 2013. The Government itself recognized that there were issues with the right to housing. For example, in the outcome of the Albania-European Union policy dialogue on the inclusion of Roma and Egyptian communities held on 20 and 21 February 2014, the Government acknowledged the need to review existing legislation and amend it in order to ensure the respect for the rule of law. In 2014, in its response to the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context, the State party did not recognize housing as a human right but admitted that legislation should be adopted to formally recognize a right to adequate housing. 7.2 The authors note the State party’s assertion regarding the absence of conflict between the authors and the Municipality of Elbasan but note also that the State party provided no proof to back such a statement. The authors submit that no consultations took place, as claimed by the State party, and that they were not informed in a timely manner about the planned demolitions. The State party stated that the notices for the demolition had been suspended, not annulled. Should the authors be unable to legalize their dwelling, their house could be demolished without any compensation to the authors. The suspension of the demolition without legalization could not therefore be considered a remedy to the authors’ problems. 7.3 The authors also submit that it is clear from article 39 of Law No. 9482/2006 that structures that need to be demolished in the public interest cannot be legalized. 7.4 The authors are also not convinced by the State party’s argument that they are entitled to alternative accommodation, should their house be demolished. The Government submits, in fact, that any compensation would be provided to the rightful owner of the land, not to the authors, unless the authors were able to buy the plot of land and secure a legal title to it. 7.5 The authors reiterate the claim already made in the communication that the decision to include their dwelling in the demolition project was the result of discrimination and submit that the State party’s authorities have a record of failing to adopt measures to provide Roma and Egyptian communities living in illegal settlements with security of housing, inter alia, by not allowing them to legalize their dwellings. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules and procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because, after receiving their eviction notices, the authors did not avail themselves of the opportunity to challenge the acts pursuant to the Code of Administrative Procedures. The Committee also notes that, based on the information provided by the parties, the authors have applied for the legalization of the dwellings where they currently reside and that the outcome of that process is not known at the time of taking a decision in the present case. The Committee takes note of the authors’ argument that administrative law proceedings would be ineffective because the domestic legal order did not allow the authors to directly challenge the notice of forced eviction or request the immediate 5