CCPR/C/127/D/2438/2014 provision of housing or other form of remedy. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that even if the authors’ dwellings were to be demolished, procedures existed to provide the authors with alternative housing. 8.4 While the Committee recalls that there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies if they have no chance of being successful, it also notes that the authors must exercise due diligence in their pursuit of available domestic remedies. Mere doubts or assumptions about the effectiveness of available domestic remedies do not absolve the authors from exhausting them.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors did not submit any complaints whatsoever before a domestic body regarding their eviction. While the authors attempted to have their property legalized, they have not shown why other administrative and judicial appeals would have been manifestly ineffective. In light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies in relation to their claims that their forced eviction would constitute a violation of their rights under articles 2, 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. 9. 5 6 The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional (b) authors. That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the See, inter alia, V.S. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/115/D/2072/2011), para. 6.3, Vargay v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1639/2007), para. 7.3, García Perea et al. v. Spain (CCPR/C/95/D/1511/2006), para. 6.2, and B.Z. et al. v. Albania (CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016), para. 6.4.