E/C.12/75/D/226/2021 E/C.12/75/D/227/2021 costs represents a heavy burden for individuals, as those who have suffered a violation of their right to housing are generally in a financially weakened position by the time that they come before a court, and the condemnation to pay legal costs always represents a heavy burden. The authors note that the reform applies even to people who have the right to free legal assistance. They highlight that, in practice, the risk of being condemned to pay amounts that could easily reach €5,000 leads people with limited economic resources, who are often already indebted to their landlords, to renounce their right to legal defence, and most lawyers recommend against lodging appeals that have no chance of success in order to avoid incurring additional costs. 5.5 The authors argue that, if the State party objects to the admissibility of a communication on the basis that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, it bears the burden of proving that remedies exist that are available and effective. They note, however, that the State party has already submitted the same observations in response to other individual communications. The authors note that the State party’s submission contains generic references to the Italian judicial system but no statement of which specific domestic remedy they could have used. 5.6 The authors note that the State party refers to the Constitutional Court, which might imply that an application to that judicial body is the domestic remedy that they should have used. They contend, however, that only judges can file an application for a remedy with that Court, which has the role of checking the validity of laws and acts, regulating the allocation of powers among the different branches of government and acting as an arbiter of charges brought against the President. The authors add that the role of the Constitutional Court is not to respond to claims submitted by individuals.5 They claim that it is thus not possible for individuals, such as themselves, to commence proceedings before that Court. The authors argue that the State party is fully aware of the above-mentioned arguments, as well as of the lack of resources that they have as persons in a vulnerable economic situation who are excluded from access to affordable housing and subject to the threat of irreparable harm and a potential violation of their rights. The authors thus contend that it is not reasonable to expect them to commence proceedings before the highest judicial organ of the State, an action that would require intermediation by a judge, which they are unable to obtain. The authors argue that the State party’s argument is inconsistent with the obligation of the State party to interpret the Covenant in good faith, in accordance with article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 5.7 The authors allege that they have exhausted all domestic remedies of which they could reasonably have availed themselves. They highlight the dire housing shortage in the State party and note that the European Union expressed concern about housing rights and evictions in the State party in a report of 2015. The authors contend that the situation has worsened in subsequent years and has become endemic as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by the State party in that context. Communication No. 226/2021 5.8 In his comments, Mr. Saydawi notes that the claim that he earns €60,000 annually is incorrect. He explains that his employment with the cultural association of Moroccan imams in Europe was replaced with a precarious relationship of “working on call” approximately two years ago, as a result of which he earns around one third of his previous salary. He notes that he currently has an indicator of equivalent economic situation of slightly more than €10,000 annually, which does not allow him to rent a house on the free market or to access 5 6 The authors refer to the public website of the Constitutional Court, which states that the Constituent Assembly made a fundamental choice regarding the general system of oversight of the constitutional validity of laws, excluding the possibility of their being directly challenged before the Court by any individual and providing instead that doubts about the constitutional validity of laws can be raised only upon their application by common judges, and that, therefore, there are as many ways to access the Court as there are common judges, of all levels. See https://cortecostituzionale.it/jsp/consulta/ istituzioni/lacorte_presentazioni.do. GE.24-03814