CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016 degrading treatment. The authors also invoke the Committee’s finding that the claim of the authors of communication No. 1799/20089 under article 7 of the Covenant was admissible. 3.3 While the authors recognize the similarities between articles 7 and 17 and are aware that in the almost identical case of Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria10 the Committee found only a (prospective) violation of article 17, they also argue that in that case, the Committee appeared ready to examine whether the authors’ eviction would constitute a violation of article 7, but that as the authors had raised their allegations only in the context of the interim measures and not in relation to the merits of the case, it declined to do so. 3.4 Regarding article 2 (1)–(3), the authors claim that there are no legal remedies they could have recourse to in order to either suspend their eviction or force the authorities to provide them with accommodation immediately after the eviction had taken place. They refer to the principle of “non-homelessness” enunciated in the basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement,11 and point out that the right to housing is not justiciable in the Albanian legal order and that the State party should enact legislation guaranteeing and promoting this right. 3.5 The authors filed a criminal complaint report on the illegal actions of the State and the municipal police in relation to their eviction on 7 November 2015. Nevertheless, they consider that this remedy is not effective as it does not have a bearing on their main complaint,12 which is that it is now impossible to either prevent their eviction or force the authorities to provide them with accommodation should the eviction take place. 3.6 Concerning article 17 (1) and (2), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1)– (3), the authors contend that the legal and factual background that led the Committee to adopt its Views in Naidenova et al. v. Bulgaria are, to all intents and purposes, identical to the present complaint.13 They also refer to an identical case before the European Court of Human Rights, Yordanova et al. v. Bulgaria,14 which, the authors believe, is based on the same principles applicable in the instant case. Although they had admittedly not been living on the plot of land from which they were evicted in October 2015 or in the building from which they were evicted in November 2015 for as many years as the authors in Naidenova, this was because to date, the authorities have failed to ensure that they were lawfully evicted and to provide them with adequate accommodation or, at the very least, to designate an area where they could settle; on the contrary, the authorities keep evicting them from place to place. The authors submit that these repeated evictions have prevented them from developing a lasting community life. 3.7 The authors further claim that their repeated evictions and demolition of their informal settlement constitute a violation of article 23, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1)–(3). In this regard, they note that they have presented their communication both on their own behalf and on behalf of their families. 3.8 They also maintain that the State party has violated article 26, read alone and in conjunction with articles 27 and 2 (1) and (3).15 They assert that Roma in Albania are the only social group that is frequently the victim of forced eviction, due to their particular 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4 Georgopoulos et al. v. Greece, Views adopted on 14 September 2010. Communication No. 2073/2011, Views adopted on 30 October 2012. A/HRC/4/18, annex I. See, by analogy, European Court of Human Rights, Farkas et autres c. Roumanie (application No. 3046/09), decision of 17 June 2014, para. 42. In that case the Committee held that the eviction of the Roma who, although having no legal title to the land, had been living there for more than 70 years without the local authorities having objected until very recently, had developed strong links with the area and had developed a community life, and that their eviction “would result in the authors’ losing their homes and that, therefore, there would be an interference with their homes. The Committee recall[ed] that, under article 17 of the Covenant, it is necessary for any interference with the home not only to be lawful, but also not to be arbitrary” (para. 14.3). Application No. 25446/06, judgment of 24 April 2012. The authors note that in its last concluding observations on Albania (CCPR/C/ALB/CO/2), the Committee examined a series of issues regarding the Roma, including that of access to housing/forced evictions, under both articles 26 and 27.