E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 finding that these options did not meet her needs, the author instead spent a few days in a room offered by a friend and then moved into a room offered by a relative. 2.16 On 28 May 2019, Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30 rejected the author’s request for reconsideration, stating that “the obligation to enforce the decision and put an end to conduct constituting a criminal offence has been met, and the public authorities have taken action to minimize the effects”. The Court specifically pointed out that the author had been informed that shared accommodation was available but had declined the offer. The complaint 3. In her initial communication, the author claimed that her eviction, which at that time had been ordered but stayed by Madrid Court of Investigation No. 30, would constitute a violation of article 11 (1) of the Covenant as she had no adequate alternative accommodation. The author stated that neither her need nor her precarious financial situation had been taken into account in the criminal proceedings against her, which had resulted in her conviction for the offence of unlawful appropriation. The author also stated that the eviction could seriously impair her children’s progress in school and that, because she had recently had a child, she could not seek work. State party’s observations under article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol 4. On 5 September 2018 and 7 February 2019, the State party reported that, in the light of the Committee’s request for interim measures, the social services department of Madrid city council had offered the author two alternative housing options. It reiterated this information in its written submission to the Committee and added a third option. The first option involved shared accommodation in the district where the author was living, where the family would have exclusive use of a room or rooms to ensure its privacy but would share common areas of the property. This first option was limited to a period of six months and was intended to facilitate the transition to renting a home managed by the Madrid city council on the private market on a shared basis with another family unit. The second option involved accommodation in rooms at a shelter that could be shared by more than one family, was limited to a period of three months and was geared towards the same outcome as the first option. Under the third option added by the State party, the city council would look for an apartment that the author can afford based on the amount she receives under the minimum subsistence income scheme but which might not be in the area where the author is currently living. The State party points out that social services consider the first option to be the most suitable but will provide assistance to the author in all three cases. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations under article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol 5.1 The author submitted comments on the State party’s observations on 27 January and 22 August 2019. 5.2 The author points out that the offer that she received came from Madrid city council and that she has received no offer from the Social Housing Agency of the Autonomous Community of Madrid, which has exclusive competence in housing matters and owns properties for use as emergency and social rental housing. 5.3 With respect to the first proposal from social services that the State party refers to, the author maintains that she has received no specific offer of accommodation in a shared apartment that includes an address and the name of the family with whom she would be living. With respect to the proposal to stay in a shelter, the author states that other families have already been turned out of such shelters because of a lack of capacity, as the shelters are used to house the homeless in cold weather. She also notes that accommodation in either a shared apartment or a shelter is a purely temporary solution, intended to provide people with a roof over their heads before channelling them elsewhere. Regarding the third option mentioned by the State party, namely a rental housing search by Madrid city council, the author states that she has never received such an offer and expresses her bewilderment that the city council did not focus on negotiating a social rental agreement with the company that owns the property in which she was living at the time so that she could remain there. 4 GE.21-04761