CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 3 March 2011, to seek a judicial order requiring the authors or the owners of the house to remove the addition. 5.6 Concerning potential violations of article 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the authors have failed to exhaust domestic remedies and that their allegations are manifestly ill-founded. Indeed, the authors did not raise any allegations of violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in their claims before domestic adjudicatory bodies, which protect individuals against “serious State-imposed psychological stress” amounting to a violation of security of the person, and provides to everyone “the right not to be subjected to any cruel or unusual treatment or punishment”. Furthermore, the State party submits that these allegations are unsubstantiated, because the authors have not provided independent medical evidence to support their assertion that the visits caused the authors physical or mental harm. The serving of legally authorized notices of violations of municipal law, the prosecution of by-law offences (which at most could lead to the imposition of a fine), or the official activities for seeking the demolition of the non-compliant structure cannot in any way be understood to have caused or contributed to the type of severe suffering that has been found to fall within the scope of article 7 of the Covenant. Furthermore, any demolition of the structure must proceed with a valid court order that forces the property owner to comply with the judicial decisions, only after the other alternatives, such as letters of notice and other administrative steps have failed. In this judicial proceeding, the authors could participate and raise arguments as to why the order should not be issued and, additionally, could raise an appeal against the order authorizing an eventual demolition. The State party informs the Committee that no demolition has occurred to date, and that any eviction from the structure concerned would not mean that the authors would be evicted from the rest of the home, should the demolition be authorized by judicial order. 5.7 Regarding the author’s allegations under article 17 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the State agents conducted visits to and not searches or inspections of the authors’ house. The vast majority of these visits were attempts to personally serve the “orders to comply”. Many of the visits were unsuccessful, and involved an official of Toronto City Council walking up to the front door, knocking and ringing the doorbell, and leaving a card. The other visits involved visual inspections of the outside of the illegal addition, which were carried out by a building inspector either standing on public property, or on adjacent property with the consent of the owner of that property. The argument of “arbitrary interferences” with the authors’ home or privacy was not raised in any domestic tribunal, to complain either about the legality or the reasonableness or the proportionality of the visits. Furthermore, the authors could have challenged the constitutional validity of the sections of the Planning Act and Building Code which authorize the attendances and inspections. Therefore, domestic remedies in this regard have not been exhausted. 5.8 As to the authors’ allegations under article 26 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the authors could have sought a constitutional remedy or raised a discrimination claim before any domestic adjudicatory venue, triggering public duties to take into consideration disability issues, such as those faced by the elderly. Moreover, at the time at which the communication was submitted, a hearing regarding the judicial review of the order to demolish the addition was still pending. Concerning the authors’ allegations of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, the State party submits that these issues were raised peripherally at the Divisional Court, but were found entirely lacking in factual foundation and hence were dismissed. Additionally, these allegations could have been raised in the judicial hearing scheduled for January 2012. The State party also submits that these allegations provide no new or additional information that could lead to a potential assessment of discrimination on the basis of disability, race or ethnic origin, so they fail to establish a prima facie case of violation of article 26 of the Covenant. 5.9 On the merits, the State party recalls that the decision of the Committee of Adjustment was subsequently confirmed in three independent processes held by the Divisional Court, the panel of three judges from the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal of Ontario, respectively. The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the availability of judicial review by an administrative superior instance 6