E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 5.4 The author reports that she filed a request for special needs housing with the Madrid Social Housing Agency on 26 October 2018 and that it was updated on 3 December of the same year. She has also filed a new application for housing with Madrid city council and appealed the decision to close the file on the housing application that she had submitted to the Community of Madrid on 25 March 2016. 5.5 The author notes that the eviction was carried out before she was notified that the Provincial High Court had dismissed her appeal against the decision of 28 September 2018. The author states that one of her children is experiencing psychological problems as a result of the eviction and the use of force by the law enforcement officers. She points out that her situation is critical, as she lacks stable housing and has lost all her belongings, and states that the public authorities have provided no answer to her situation. She also points out that the Court has not followed the Committee’s instructions, taking them to be mere recommendations. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 On 15 October 2019, the State party asked the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the communication or, alternatively, to find that it is inadmissible or does not disclose any violation of the Covenant. 6.2 The State party points out that, in the case at hand, the author was occupying the premises without authorization before she applied for public housing, which she did on 22 March 2018, to the city council, and on 1 August 2018,3 to the Autonomous Community. In addition, despite her conviction on 30 January 2018, the author remained in the property until 6 May 2019. 6.3 The State party has provided a social services report dated 30 August 2018 which states that the author had had a file with social services since 2010 and that there had been regular follow-ups since 15 June 2017. The social services department of Madrid city council stated that they had reiterated the three alternative accommodation options4 referred to above on multiple occasions, but that the family had declined the offers, indicating that it had an alternative available through its social network. Social services stated that the author neither accepted nor supported the socio-residential pathway proposed, which involved putting an end to the unlawful occupation and temporarily sharing accommodation with another family with similar characteristics while continuing to explore alternative housing options for the medium term. In another report, dated 14 October 2019, social services indicated that, since the eviction, the family had been taken in by various members of its social network and was registered with the social services centre so that it would not lose access to the social benefits that it had been granted. Social services reported that they had again put forward the offer of temporary shared housing, and that it had again been declined by the author. With respect to her application for social housing from the Madrid city council, she is on the waiting list. 6.4 With respect to the social housing application filed with the Autonomous Community of Madrid on 1 August 2018, the State party reports that the author was asked to provide additional information on three occasions, as the file was incomplete. With respect to the application of 22 March 2016, the author was informed of the decision to close her application file on 30 April 2019, a decision that she has appealed. 6.5 In the light of the foregoing, the State party is of the view that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies, as, in the first place, she did not apply for housing before beginning her illegal occupation of the property and, in the second, after moving in, she did not submit the documentation requested by the Autonomous Community of Madrid. An application for housing constitutes an available remedy in respect of the right to housing in the State party system and this avenue should therefore have been exhausted by the author. The State party is thus of the view that the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 3 4 GE.21-04761 According to a report by the Madrid social services, the author had applied for housing on 22 March 2016, but her application file was closed because she had not provided the requested documentation, namely a judgment certifying that she had custody of her children. See para. 4.1 above. 5