E/C.12/75/D/226/2021 E/C.12/75/D/227/2021 that the author of the communication has not exhausted available and effective remedies capable of redressing the alleged violation.8 The Committee considers that, if a State party argues for inadmissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of local remedies, it must identify which remedies should have been exhausted, showing that they are appropriate and effective,9 which it has failed to do in the present cases. The Committee thus considers that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol is not an obstacle to the admissibility of the present communications. 6.5 The Committee notes that the communications meet the other admissibility requirements under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol and, accordingly, declares the communications admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Committee’s consideration of the merits C. Facts and legal issues 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communications, taking into account all the information provided to it, in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee will proceed to consider which facts it deems to be established and relevant to the complaints. 7.3 At the time of the submission of the communications, the authors had been living in two houses with their families, Mr. Farah for 16 years and Mr. Saydawi for 20 years, without legal title. They had renovated the houses and registered them as their place of residence. The State party authorities were aware of the authors’ presence in and renovation of the houses, which they condoned. 7.4 Following the acquisition of the houses by the Italian State railway company in 2008, judicial proceedings were initiated to request the eviction of the occupants and, on 25 November 2012, the authors were ordered by a civil court to vacate the houses and pay a fine. However, it was not until 15 March 2021 that a firm eviction order was pronounced against the authors. 7.5 The authors do not have the financial means to find adequate alternative housing on the private market. They requested social housing in 2021, and the authorities have been aware of their need for alternative housing since 2011. The only alternative offered by the State party consisted of temporary emergency shelter, which would have led to a separation of each family, through a separation of the men from the women. 7.6 The authors claim that evicting them and their families without alternative and adequate accommodation would amount to a violation of their right to adequate housing under article 11 (1) of the Covenant. 7.7 In the light of the Committee’s determination of the relevant facts and the parties’ submissions, the issue raised by the communications is whether the judicial decision to evict the authors and their families without making provision for a consultation on and review of housing alternatives and, in the final instance, ensuring that the authors had alternative accommodation when the eviction was ordered was a violation of the right to adequate housing enshrined in article 11 (1) of the Covenant. To make that determination, the Committee will begin by returning to its jurisprudence on protection against forced eviction. It will then consider the question of the eviction of the authors and their families and address the issues raised in the communications. Protection against forced eviction 8.1 The human right to adequate housing is a fundamental right of central importance for the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights and of other, civil and political 8 9 8 Ziablitsev v. France (E/C.12/71/D/176/2020), para. 6.6. I.D.G. v. Spain (E/C.12/55/D/2/2014), para. 9.5. GE.24-03814