CCPR/C/128/D/2568/2015 remedies are summarily denied by the Government or repressed with harassment, violence and other threats. In addition, the authors submit that victims of evictions within the State party are not compensated for the loss of their homes, but are instead provided with inadequate relocation assistance and left in worsened circumstances, with no recourse. 3.3 With regard to article 6, the authors claim that, to date, 10 people have been killed as a result of violent forced evictions carried out by the State party. The victims include the authors A.H., killed on 16 March 2011 while resisting the demolition of his house, and A.L., killed by a gunshot wound on 23 April 2012.25 The authors stress that the State party has failed in its duty to prevent the deprivation of life through criminal acts and arbitrary killing by its own security forces.26 3.4 The authors also claim that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant by the Government’s ongoing threat of eviction, which may itself amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the violence and use of force by police officers and demolition teams during the period between 25 January 2011 to 11 January 2012 (see para. 2.8 above) in forcibly evicting them and the harassment and threats against the affected residents by the police and demolition team, which amount to torture as well as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.27 3.5 The authors further allege that the State party has violated their rights under article 17 of the Covenant.28 They refer to previous jurisprudence of the Committee in which it has concluded that forced evictions and demolitions of houses violate article 17 of the Covenant, including in contexts in which the land in question was not owned by the evictees. 29 In Liliana Assenova Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria, the Committee held that forced evictions amounted to a violation of article 17 when they were forced evictions from long-standing homes, when those evicted faced the risk of being rendered homeless or were rendered homeless and when there were no or inadequate consultations regarding the provision of adequate alternative housing. In the present case, the authors maintain that adequate alternative housing was not provided to them and that they were not allowed to meaningfully participate in decisions related to the provision of such resettlement. They argue that the Committee should therefore apply to their case the same reasoning as in Liliana Assenova Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria. They claim that the interference suffered as a result of their eviction, even though provided for under the law, must be deemed arbitrary and as amounting to a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 3.6 The authors submit that they have no further domestic remedies available to them to appeal the Supreme Court decision and to claim their rights before the State party’s courts, due to a denial of their legitimate entitlement to the land, or to challenge their forced eviction or seek remedy for the loss that they have suffered. In particular, the authors claim that the very short time frame between the public posting of the notice and the demolition of houses provided them with no possibility of effective remedy or recourse, given that there was no waiting period in which they could challenge the evictions. Efforts by residents who attempt to gain access to legal remedies to vindicate violations of their rights 25 26 27 28 29 6 By an email dated 22 May 2014, the authors informed the Committee that their counsel was unable to obtain power of attorney forms from the family members of all of the victims of the alleged article 6 violations and that the only authors were those listed in paragraph 1 above. The authors refer to the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life (subsequently replaced by general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life). The authors refer to the Committee’s general comment No. 7 (replaced by general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment). The authors also invoke the Committee’s concluding observations on the third periodic report of Israel (CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3) and its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Israel (CCPR/CO/78/ISR), in which the Committee accepted that a forced eviction in and of itself may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The authors cite Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/77 of 10 March 1993 and 2004/28 of 16 April 2004; and the Committee’s general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy. See Liliana Assenova Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011). The Dobri Jeliazkov community was an established community that received inadequate notices of eviction, whose homes were threatened with demolition and that did not receive adequate alternative housing; see also the Committee’s concluding observations on the second periodic report of Kenya (CCPR/CO/83/KEN); and its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Israel (CCPR/CO/78/ISR), para. 16.