CCPR/C/118/D/2242/2013 Decentralized Administration of Attica issued a second relocation decision designating the ABK 354 plot in the municipality of Megara as the new relocation site, upon fulfilment of the conditions established in the relevant legislation.34 6.4 The State party submits that even though the 1996 demolition orders are final and remain in force, no concrete practical measures have been taken to remove the authors from their current location. The State party therefore considers that the Committee’s request to prevent the authors from becoming homeless has been fulfilled. 6.5 The State party also considers that, as the authors have not been evicted, their allegations relating to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant are ill-founded. It further considers that the authorities’ abstention from implementing the demolition orders until a relocation site is found cannot be considered as an “incitement” to stay in the settlement. It submits that the authorities have taken several actions to improve the living conditions therein, including cleaning, removal of debris, and refuse collection. The State party informs the Committee that between 2002 and 2009 a housing loans programme for Greek Roma was implemented and that some of the inhabitants of the settlement benefited from it.35 However in 2007, the first author sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior indicating that the families who had had their loans approved would not move from the settlement until all the families who applied had their loans approved. The State party considers that such an “all or nothing” position cannot be approved and concludes that the authors’ allegations under article 17, read independently or in conjunction with article 2, and under article 23, should also be held to be unsubstantiated. 6.6 In relation to article 26, the State party considers that the authors have not been victims of discrimination: the authorities have made sustained efforts to identify and designate suitable accommodation to relocate them to, and the delays in finding it are not linked to the authors’ ethnic origin but rather result from the challenges faced by the authorities. Additionally, the non-enforcement of the demolition orders demonstrates that the State party has taken into account that the Roma are a vulnerable social group, whose housing needs should be adequately addressed. The loan programme is also a special measure that supports the Roma community, including the authors. The State party therefore concludes that article 26 of the Covenant has not been breached. 6.7 The State party reiterates that the communication is inadmissible due to the authors’ lack of locus standi. It indicates that they did not elaborate on the distinction between communications submitted by individuals and those submitted by legal persons, and that according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, communications submitted by legal persons are inadmissible. 36 The State party also reiterates that the authors did not exhaust all available domestic remedies, and rejects the authors’ argument that the non-execution of the decisions of 1995 and 1996 created a “legitimate expectation” that they would not be evicted, because an executable decision can always be enforced. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations and authors’ further submissions 7.1 In their comments dated 3 February 2014, the authors submit that the State party is not following the two-way approach it described: on 8 November 2013, the SecretaryGeneral of the Decentralized Administration of Attica issued a new demolition order, to be 34 35 36 8 Article 3 of joint ministerial decision 23641/2003 regarding infrastructure works and sanitary requirements. It indicated that 64 families from the settlement were beneficiaries of the programme, out of which 16 obtained a disbursement of the loan. However, the beneficiaries are free to decide whether, how and where to use the loan. See Hartikainen v. Finland and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada.