E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 2.9 On 2 August 2018, the author asked Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30 to stay the eviction, given her situation of vulnerability, so that she could negotiate with the company that owned the property. After the communication was registered 2.10 On 17 August 2018, the Committee registered the communication and, to prevent any irreparable harm to the author and her three minor children, asked the State party to take interim measures while the case was being considered by the Committee, either through a stay of eviction or through the provision of alternative housing, by engaging in a genuine and constructive dialogue with her. 2.11 On 20 August 2018, the author submitted the Committee’s notice of registration and request for interim measures to Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30. That same day, the Court issued a ruling rejecting the request for the eviction to be stayed. The Court noted that the eviction had been ordered in the context of a criminal case and formed part of a sentence upheld by the Provincial High Court on appeal, and that the exercise of judicial power fell exclusively to the courts and tribunals authorized by law. In addition, the Court recalled that the author’s eviction from the property had been postponed on successive occasions, that the competing interests involved needed to be weighed against each other and that the right of the party seeking enforcement to recover possession of the property must be taken into consideration. 2.12 On 28 September 2018, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30 dismissed the author’s request for reconsideration of the ruling of 20 August 2018. With respect to the request for interim measures, the Court pointed out that the Committee was not insisting on a stay of eviction but rather requesting that irreparable harm be prevented either through a stay of eviction or through the provision of alternative housing. The Court affirmed that the decision was being carried out in such a way that the author was not prevented from accessing the resources available through the public authorities to mitigate the effects of the eviction, as the eviction had initially been postponed and social services had been informed of the situation so that they could initiate the public protection measures available. The Court also recalled that, on the date set for the eviction, medical personnel had been present at the property to provide the necessary assistance. The Court stated that it was not the role of the judiciary to evaluate housing policy, but rather to ensure that decisions were enforced. The author appealed the dismissal. 2.13 On 18 March 2019, Madrid Provincial High Court dismissed the author’s appeal, partially on the grounds that the request for interim measures submitted by the Committee to the State party was addressed to the State as such, and should not therefore be used to justify or excuse unlawful conduct constituting an offence. Nor, furthermore, should private individuals or legal entities have to bear the consequences, regardless of whether the State adopted alternative measures. The Provincial High Court was also of the view that, when the interests at play were weighed up, the fact that stood out was that the author had been occupying the dwelling illegally for years before the proceedings were initiated, without having approached social services, the body responsible for addressing her needs, and that the proceedings had been prolonged for a year without the author having taken any steps to remedy her situation. 2.14 On 4 April 2019, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30 ordered that the author and her children be evicted from the property. On 6 April 2019, the author filed a request for reconsideration. On 6 May 2019, the criminal investigation police turned up at the author’s home and proceeded to carry out the eviction. The author states that she was not present at the time but that her children, who were being looked after by a relative, were, and that when the relative refused to open the door, the authorities broke it down. The author states that the eviction went ahead and she was not allowed to recover her belongings, which she has lost for good. She also states that social services and health-care personnel were not present at the eviction, as is required by law. The author filed for review of the eviction the same day that it was carried out. 2.15 When the author informed social services of her eviction, they offered her accommodation in a shelter or guesthouse for two weeks as an emergency measure. However, GE.21-04761 3