E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 given that housing is a limited resource. The author has been offered housing solutions that she has repeatedly declined and has not completed her housing application. The State party concludes that the communication does not disclose any violation of the Covenant and requests that the Committee discontinue its consideration of it. Author’s comments on admissibility and the merits 7.1 On 6 January 2020, the author reiterated that she has been in a completely precarious situation since her eviction. She also states that the authorities have made no specific offers of accommodation or housing beyond six months’ temporary accommodation in a shelter, where there are many conflicts among residents and which would not be suitable for a family with minor children. 7.2 The author also states that, prior to the trial in which she was convicted of a minor offence, the financial institution that had previously owned the property had brought a complaint against her in 2016. The complaint was provisionally dismissed on 4 August 2016 because there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. On 3 September 2018, the proceedings were definitively dismissed because criminal liability had been extinguished. The author argues that the consideration of the complaint filed against her by the new owner on 21 November 2017 constitutes a violation of the principle of non bis in idem. 7.3 The author states that she has not been granted the housing that she has applied for by either the city council or the Community of Madrid, despite being a single mother with a recognized 35 per cent disability, and that this is because she has been discriminated against because of her Roma ethnicity. 7.4 The author reports that she has lost the financial benefits that she had received for being registered with a government office and that this constitutes a violation of article 11 (1) of the Covenant because she is a woman with a disability and of Roma ethnicity. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 9 of its provisional rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether or not the communication is admissible. 8.2 The Committee recalls that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol precludes it from considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The State party argues that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies because she did not apply for social housing before beginning her illegal occupation of the property and, after moving in, did not submit the documentation requested by the Autonomous Community of Madrid to complete her application. The Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol, “available domestic remedies” are all remedies available to the author in direct relation with the events that initially gave rise to the claimed violation and that, prima facie, may be reasonably considered as effective for remedying the claimed violations of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the principal complaint put forward by the author in her communication is that her eviction would contravene the Covenant because she has no alternative housing. Therefore, the remedies that must be exhausted are, first of all, those directly related to the eviction, such as remedies aimed at preventing or delaying the eviction or serving to notify the courts of the lack of alternative housing. In this connection, the Committee notes that the author exhausted all the available remedies aimed at preventing or delaying the eviction, since, at the time she submitted her communication, she had appealed against the judgment of conviction that ordered her to vacate the property, thereby exhausting this avenue, and had requested that the eviction order be stayed and that social services be duly informed, given her lack of alternative housing. With respect to the application for social housing filed with the Autonomous Community of Madrid, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, persons such as the author who are occupying a property without a legal right to do so cannot apply to this body for social housing. The Committee therefore finds that the State party has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that this remedy was available and would have been effective in the circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the Committee finds that GE.21-04761 7