CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015 the State party to amend the Act and to adopt a legal framework establishing procedures to be followed in the case of evictions, in line with international standards, including general comment No. 7 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 35 5.7 Furthermore, the authors argue that the previous relocation of the author D.G. is irrelevant to the present case, given that he was relocated to a housing unit in Dasmariñas Baghong Bayan, Cavite City, as part of a previous government relocation programme, but he was not required to remain in that housing for life. Having enjoyed the freedom of movement, he relocated again, given that the lack of livelihood opportunities at Dasmariñas Baghong Bayan, Cavite City, rendered his housing inadequate. 5.8 The authors also claim that domestic remedies are unavailable, ineffective or unreasonably delayed, referring to the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee to the effect that authors must meet the requirement of exhaustion of all available domestic remedies, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case. 36 In the present case, domestic remedies are unavailable or ineffective. The State party does not mention one domestic remedy that it claims has been available, except the pending complaint with the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. However, as the State party acknowledges in its submission, the complaint filed with the Commission has languished before the Commission for six years, and filing that complaint failed to prevent the forced eviction of the community, given that no injunction was granted halting the evictions pending a final decision by the Commission. Consequently, that domestic remedy has been unreasonably delayed and proven to be ineffective in preventing or remedying the alleged violations of the Covenant. 5.9 The State party’s observations on the merits have offered categorical statements, without any evidence or substantiation. The authors reaffirm that the notice of eviction was inadequate, because they were not given individualized notices and the posted notice gave only three days’ notice to vacate their homes and did not name the specific homes or addresses subject to eviction. Furthermore, some of the inhabitants were resettled in an area without adequate services and facilities. The authors conclude by maintaining that the pattern of violence continued beyond January 2012 at the relocation sites. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 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. 6.3 The Committee observes however the State party’s objection to the admissibility of the communication due to a manifest lack of substantiation, as well as non-exhaustion of all available domestic remedies, pursuant to articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ complaint submitted in 2011 to the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines remains pending with the Commission and that the authors could have filed a case prior to and pending their eviction and relocation before the courts, the Ombudsman, the Civil Service Commission and other quasi-judicial bodies to seek accountability of the erring officials (see para. 4.13 above). The Committee notes the authors’ arguments that domestic remedies are unavailable and ineffective, given that the Corazon de Jesus Homeowners Association obtained a negative decision from the Supreme Court, the highest court in the Philippines, on 29 September 1997, which remains valid, and that they therefore cannot challenge their forced eviction (see para. 2.3 above), that the 35 36 Ibid., para. 50. See, for example, Gilberg v. Germany (CCPR/C/87/D/1403/2005), para. 6.5; see also P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5; and Riedl-Riedenstein et al v. Germany (CCPR/C/82/D/1188/2003), para. 7.2. 11