CCPR/C/127/D/2438/2014 refer to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee in similar cases1 and to reports of other United Nations bodies and international organizations. 2 The complaint 3. The authors called upon the Human Rights Committee to grant, as a matter of urgency, an immediate injunction calling for the suspension of their forced eviction resulting from the demolition of their lodging (decided on 30 June 2014 and scheduled to take place from 5 July 2014 onwards) while the case was under consideration by the Committee. The authors allege that should the forced eviction resulting from the demolition of their lodgings take place without them being provided with alternative accommodation, Albania would be in violation of articles 2, 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 8 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested the Committee to consider the authors’ claims inadmissible. The State party states that the authors did not exhaust all available domestic remedies and did not challenge the eviction notices issued by the Municipality of Elbasan. The authors should have submitted administrative complaints and appeals to the courts. Article 135 of the Code of Administrative Procedures provides that everyone has a right to seek the revocation, repeal or modification of an administrative act that affects the rights of the citizens concerned. The authors, however, did not explore this avenue. 4.2 Pursuant to article 18 of the Constitution of Albania, everyone is equal before the law, without discrimination. Any limitations on rights and freedoms can be imposed only by law in the interests of the public or to protect the rights of other citizens. If unsuccessful in challenging the acts through administrative procedures, citizens have a right under Law No. 49/2012 to submit an appeal. In all other analogous cases involving the demolition of property, the administrative authorities and the courts have suspended the demolition. Based on the above-mentioned arguments, the complaint should be considered inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 13 October 2014, responding to the State party’s arguments on the admissibility of their communication, the authors contend that the available domestic remedies are ineffective. Firstly, they submit that they are members of a vulnerable and marginalized community. Moreover, the authors argue that it is practically impossible for them to obtain free legal aid because they live outside of Tirana, that the procedure for applying for legal aid is cumbersome and that there is a small number of legal aid lawyers. The European Commission, in its October 2014 report, 4 noted that the State party should improve the functioning of the State Commission for Legal Aid, that the judicial fees may deter citizens from applying for protection and that the application procedures are too cumbersome. 5.2 Secondly, the authors contend that the State party does not have sufficient safeguards to protect their housing rights. Albanian law does not have such provisions, especially in respect of vulnerable groups such as the Roma. 1 2 3 4 See Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011) and the Committee’s Views on communication No. 2241/2013, brought forward by the Cultural Association of Greek Gypsies Originating from Halkida and Suburbs “I Elpida” and Stylianos Kalamiotis against Greece (currently pending before the Committee). See also CCPR/C/ALB/CO/2, para. 23. The authors point specifically to a report of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. See mutatis mutandis UN HRC Communication 1799/2008, Antonios Georgopoulos et al v. Greece, decision made public on 14 September 2010. See https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/65636879-4fc6-11e4-a0cb-01aa75ed71a1. 3