CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 are de facto available to the author.34 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication because the authors, in essence, never invoked before the domestic courts the violations they have alleged before the Committee. 10.4 The Committee examines the arguments made by both parties in the order in which the allegations are presented by the authors. a. Right to privacy 10.5 The Committee takes note of the authors’ arguments that they have been subjected to arbitrary interference with their home, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant, in that it has twice been taken from them by court order. They are also of the view that their honour and reputation have been attacked. The State party, on the other hand, believes that the disputed house does not qualify as a home. The Committee notes that, according to the authors, the property concerned should be considered their second home and that if they did not always live in it, it was not their fault. The authors’ house has always been their home, except when they rented it out in an attempt to ensure that the courts would allow them to keep it. The authors moved into the house in August 1990, rented it out in 1996 and returned to it in 1997. They rented it out again in June 1998. In June 2008, the authors moved back in and stayed until they were forced out in 2013. They thus lived in it for 12 years during the various proceedings that they were parties to. They also point out that they have exhausted all possible domestic means of regaining ownership of the house that was sold at auction, while also seeking protection from arbitrary interference with their home. With regard to this claim, the Committee is of the opinion that interference with the home is compatible with article 17 of the Covenant if it is provided for by law, consistent with the aims and objectives of the Covenant and reasonable in the particular circumstances. 35 In this case, Crédit foncier de France and, later, the Compagnie de financement foncier were obliged to seek payment of the debt they held by requesting the seizure and sale of the property burdened by the mortgage. The forced sale was ordered to ensure that their rights were respected. The Committee further considers that the authors have failed to demonstrate that the foreclosure proceedings did not adhere to the proportionality principle or that they were unreasonable in view of the particular circumstances of the case. It notes in this regard that the authors had the opportunity to settle their debt over the course of the years all these proceedings lasted. In addition, several court decisions, one after the other, addressed the authors’ arguments, and as a whole the deliberations raised facts and issues that are currently before the Committee.36 Even if it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering this claim, the Committee is of the view that the authors have not sufficiently substantiated it and considers it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. b. Right to an impartial judge 10.6 With regard to article 14 (1) of the Covenant, the authors believe that their right to property is a civil right, violated on three occasions because of the lack of impartiality of one of the judge’s ruling on their case and of the denial of justice resulting from the lack of effective redress. They also complain about the excessive length of the proceedings, as bringing proceedings to a conclusion within a reasonable time is a component of the right to a fair hearing as it relates to rights and obligations in a suit at law. The Committee is indeed of the opinion that, in a suit at law, delays that cannot be justified by the complexity of the case or the behaviour of the parties detract from the principle of a fair hearing enshrined in article 14 (1) of the Covenant.37 10.7 With regard to judge X’s alleged lack of impartiality, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that this claim was not made before the domestic courts and that the mere fact that the judge in question issued several decisions unfavourable to the authors is not 34 35 36 37 12 Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4, and P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5. Vojnović et al. v. Croatia (CCPR/C/95/D/1510/2006), para. 8.5. Kavanagh v. Ireland, para. 9.3. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 27, Muñoz Hermoza v. Peru (CCPR/C/34/D/203/1986), para. 11.3, and Fei v. Colombia (CCPR/C/53/D/514/1992), para. 8.4. GE.21-01892