CCPR/C/121/D/2837/2016 principle of security of tenure and the provision of judicial protection in cases of forced eviction. In the interests of transparency, legal counsel for the authors note that one of them was commissioned by the Council of Europe as an expert in the context of the progress review report on the Council of Europe Programmatic Cooperation Document for Albania, 2015−2017, and contributed to the drafting of the law which aims at introducing into the Albanian legal system key elements and standards contained in general comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 5.3 On 3 May 2017, the authors submitted further information on available domestic remedies in relation to forced evictions. They report that on 12 April 2017, the Council of Ministers adopted the draft law on social housing as proposed by the Ministry for Urban Development. They consider that through this draft law, the Ministry acknowledges the Council of Europe’s input in introducing for the first time in the Albanian legal order an express prohibition of forced evictions if not accompanied by the provision of alternative housing. The authors believe that the documents submitted constitute the most conclusive evidence that at the time of the events described in their communication, they did not have access to a remedy insofar as the right to housing and its concomitant entitlement to protection from forced eviction did not exist in the Albanian legal order. 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 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 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 takes note of the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because, after receiving the notifications and information from the Municipality of Tirana, the authors could have challenged the acts undertaken by the municipality, pursuant to the Code of Administrative Procedures. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that in connection with the present communication, no petition, request or claim has been submitted by the authors before the municipality. It takes note also of the authors’ argument that these administrative law proceedings would be ineffective. The authors have argued, in particular, that there does not exist in the domestic legal order a remedy that would allow them to challenge their forced eviction or to request the immediate provision of housing. The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the right to housing is not justiciable in the Albanian legal order and that the State party still has not enacted legislation that guarantees and promotes the right to housing. It also notes that, in the meantime, on 12 April 2017, the law on social housing, which provides for the express prohibition of forced evictions if not accompanied by the provision of alternative housing, was adopted. 6.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence stating that, although there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies if they have no chance of being successful, authors of communications must exercise due diligence in the pursuit of available remedies and that mere doubts or assumptions about their effectiveness do not absolve the authors from exhausting them.24 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors should have submitted a complaint to the municipality against their eviction and that they should have appealed further through the administrative court in place. The Committee further notes that the information provided by the authors in that regard does 24 8 See, inter alia, communications Nos. 2072/2011. V.S. v. New Zealand, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 6.3; No. 1639/2007, Vargay v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 28 July 2009, para. 7.3.; No. 1511/2006, García Perea et al. v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 March 2009, para. 6.2; and No. 560/1993, A v. Australia, Views adopted on 3 April 1997, para. 6.4.