CCPR/C/127/D/2438/2014 5.3 Thirdly, the authors contend that they were never consulted prior to receiving the eviction notices. Residents affected by eviction orders should be consulted and alternative accommodation should be proposed before the eviction can take place. 5.4 The authors explain that, under Law No. 10433/2011, a building inspector or an inspection body can issue two types of administrative acts: an emergency measure or a regular decision. The authors argue that the Government has used emergency measures in their case and that appealing those emergency measures does not automatically trigger a suspensive effect, according to article 44.1 of Law No. 10433/2011. Moreover, the authors had only five days to appeal their eviction notices. 5.5 As for the judicial proceedings, the State party does not mention a single case in which a court suspended an eviction and subsequently found a violation of the rights of the complainants on the merits. The authors believe that no cases of courts protecting housing rights exist, as confirmed by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 2013, when it recommended that the State party enact legislation that ensured the right to housing (E/C.12/ALB/CO/2-3, para. 31). State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 26 January 2015 and 11 February 2016, the State party provided its observations on the merits. It submits that the plan to construct a road and reconstruct a stadium was approved by the national commission for the territory on 27 May 2014 and that implementation of the plan would affect several families, including 12 families belonging to the Roma minority. The local authorities held meetings with affected residents, including Roma minority families. Specifically regarding the authors, the authorities have evidence that the Municipality of Elbasan had no disagreement or conflict with them. Subsequently, the authorities proceeded with notifying the families and requesting them to vacate the land within five days of receipt of the notice. Those steps were all based on national law and conformed with the administrative procedures in place. The State party also submits that the residents were informed and notified about the project well in advance, before the notification date of 30 June 2014. 6.2 After the notices to vacate the property had been submitted, the authors submitted documents indicating that they had initiated the process to legalize their dwellings. After verifying the documents, the Municipality of Elbasan informed the authors that the notices for the demolition of their house had been suspended. The Municipality also informed the authors that money from an established “expropriation fund” would be made available after the authors had provided their certificates of ownership. The authors were formally notified that their houses would not be demolished on 1 July 2014. 6.3 The Agency for the Legalization, Urbanization and Integration of Informal Areas or Buildings conducted on-site observations of the authors’ dwelling, prepared sketches and mapping materials and concluded that the property in question fell outside the boundaries of the proposed project. The question remained as to whether the authors could continue the legalization process since their dwelling was constructed illegally. The Agency, which was in charge of the process, confirmed that the property belonging to the authors was still undergoing legalization. The State party confirms that 40 individuals filed applications under the procedure and that 30 of them had received legalization permits, 2 of whom belonged to the minority Roma community. The process of legalization was complex and delays could arise, but not for the reason of discriminating against some applicants. 6.4 In conclusion, the State party submits that the demolition notices regarding the authors had been suspended and that there were no impediments to the continuation of the legalization procedure. Should the building in question be demolished to implement projects in the public interest, the legislation on housing guaranteed alternative accommodation. The communication of the authors should therefore be declared inadmissible. Moreover, articles 7, 17, 23, 26 and 27 of the Covenant were not violated, as alleged by the authors. 4