E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 the author has exhausted all domestic remedies related to this claim and declares it admissible under article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.3 The Committee notes that the author claims in her last submission that her conviction for the offence of unlawful appropriation violated the principle of non bis in idem, since earlier criminal proceedings arising from the same facts had been dismissed. However, the Committee also notes that she did not make this claim in her first submission, even though the events referred to predated it. The Committee further notes that the author made no such claim in her appeal of 18 February 2018 to the Provincial High Court. The Committee therefore finds this claim inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies under article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes that the remainder of the communication meets the other admissibility requirements under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol and, accordingly, declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. C. Committee’s consideration of the merits Facts and legal issues 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication taking into account all the information provided to it, in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee will proceed to examine the facts that it considers to have been established and to be relevant to the complaint. 9.3 The author began squatting in the property in May 2015. In November 2017, criminal proceedings were initiated against her for the offence of unlawful appropriation. On 30 January 2018, the author was found guilty of the minor offence of occupying the property of another without authorization and was ordered to pay a three-month fine calculated at a rate of €2 a day and to vacate the property. The Provincial High Court upheld this decision on 19 April 2018. 9.4 Between March and May 2018, the author applied for housing from the city council and the Autonomous Community of Madrid. The latter application was later supplemented on several occasions. 9.5 On several occasions between March 2018 and May 2019, Madrid social services offered the author three temporary housing options: accommodation shared with another family, accommodation in a shelter, and assistance in finding housing within her means in another district. The author declined these offers on the grounds that the authority offering these housing solutions was not the one empowered to do so and that the solution was inadequate because it was only temporary and involved sharing accommodation. 9.6 With the agreement of the owner, the author’s eviction was postponed for one month beginning 29 May 2018. The date of 20 August 2018 was set for a forced eviction that did not take place. On 6 May 2019, the author was evicted. 9.7 After the eviction, as an emergency measure, Madrid social services offered the author two weeks’ accommodation in a shelter or guesthouse, but the author declined the offer, staying instead with persons forming part of her social network. 9.8 The author is of the view that her eviction, without adequate alternative housing being provided, violates article 11 (1) of the Covenant, as her need and precarious financial situation had not been taken into account. The State party argues that the Covenant does not apply to evictions of persons occupying property without legal right. Furthermore, the State party is of the view that the Covenant does not recognize an enforceable, subjective right, but rather a right that is to be realized progressively, and that it is in full compliance with its international obligations in the area, as it has taken all possible steps, given the resources available, to provide the author with alternative housing. 9.9 In the light of the facts that the Committee has deemed to be relevant, and of the arguments submitted by the parties, the question raised by the communication is whether the 8 GE.21-04761