E/C.12/75/D/226/2021 E/C.12/75/D/227/2021 collaboration were not taken into account in the decision to evict the authors. Moreover, the eviction was the result not of a request by an individual who needed the housing as a home or to provide vital income but of proceedings brought by the State railway company, which had neglected the premises for several years. 10.4 The Committees notes that measures taken within the framework of an eviction must be reasonable and appropriate in view of the interests at stake and the circumstances of the persons affected.38 10.5 The Committee considers it relevant to state that, in the light of the specific circumstances of the present cases, a proper proportionality test should have considered: the weighing of the socioeconomic vulnerability of the authors and their families; the differential impact of the eviction on the authors, as heads of households in a precarious economic situation; the best interests of the children and their right to be heard; the authors’ previous applications for social housing; the availability of social housing provided by the responsible administrative authorities and the existence of alternative means of resolving the problem; and the lengthy period of time for which they had resided in the houses. In order to assess the authors’ situation, the authorities involved should have held a genuine and effective consultation with them and should have requested the relevant administrative authorities to provide information on the availability of social housing for the authors and their families. 10.6 The Committee is therefore of the view that the failure to carry out a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of the proportionality of the eviction constituted a violation by the State party of the authors’ right to housing under article 11 of the Covenant. D. Conclusion and recommendations 11.1 On the basis of all the information provided and in the particular circumstances of the present cases, the Committee considers that the eviction of the authors and their families without an adequate proportionality test by the judicial authorities, in the absence of a consideration of the disproportionate impact that the eviction might have on the authors and their families and of the best interests of the child, and without respecting the procedural guarantees of adequate and genuine consultation, would constitute a violation of the authors’ right to adequate housing. 11.2 The Committee, acting under article 9 (1) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party violated the authors’ right under article 11 (1) of the Covenant. In the light of its Views in the present communications, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party. Recommendations in respect of the authors 12. The State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, in particular by: (a) reassessing, if they are not currently in adequate housing, their state of necessity and their place on the waiting list, taking into account the length of time that their application for housing has been on file with the relevant authorities, starting from the date on which they applied, with a view to providing them with public housing or taking some other measure that would enable them to live in adequate housing, bearing in mind the criteria set out in the present Views; (b) providing the authors with financial compensation for the violations of their rights; and (c) reimbursing the authors for the legal costs reasonably incurred in submitting the present communications, at both the domestic and the international levels. General recommendations 13. The Committee considers that the remedies recommended in the context of individual communications may include guarantees of non-repetition and recalls that the State party has an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. The State party should ensure that its 38 12 Ben Djazia et al. v. Spain, paras. 15.3 and 15.5. GE.24-03814