E/C.12/75/D/226/2021 E/C.12/75/D/227/2021 temporary housing.6 Mr. Saydawi claims that the assertion that he earns €60,000 annually is further proof of bad faith, as the social worker from the Interministerial Committee for Human Rights with whom he was requested to meet transmitted incorrect information instead of solving his problem, in an attempt to discharge the State party of its obligations towards the most vulnerable in society. Communication No. 227/2021 5.9 Referring to the State party’s comments on the merits, Mr. Farah contends that the mention of the extraordinary and non-extraordinary subsidies provided to his family is not relevant. He notes that he is a working person who is unable to support a family of six and pay rent on only one income. He points out that the subsidies referred to by the State party do not provide valid or permanent solutions to prevent harm in case of an eviction. He specifies that the COVID-19 emergency income expired in December 2020 and was not available when the communication was submitted in September 2021. He notes that, to request citizenship income, he would be required to stop working. He argues that, while the single and universal allowance, which has recently been established by the Government and includes a subsidy of €175 for each child, will certainly have a positive impact on the family’s finances, it will not avert the risk of forced eviction for his family. Mr. Farah contends that temporary, emergency-related solutions such as those mentioned in the State party’s response do not guarantee respect for article 11 of the Covenant, since they all entail the separation of the family and offer no permanent remedy in view of the risk of irreparable harm. Committee’s consideration of admissibility B. 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 10 (2) of the rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether the communication is admissible. 6.2 The Committee is competent, ratione materiae, to consider allegations of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee therefore declares the authors’ claims under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant pursuant to article 3 (2) (d) of the Optional Protocol. 7 6.3 The Committee recalls that article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol precludes it from considering a communication unless it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been respected in the individual communications under examination (see para. 4.3 above). The Committee also takes note of the authors’ contention that the domestic remedies must be available and effective and of the claim that, if a 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. 6.4 The Committee further takes note of the authors’ uncontested allegation that an appeal against the firm sentence and eviction order of 15 March 2021 had no prospect of success given the need to present new evidence and that such an appeal would impose on them an undue financial burden in view of the need to cover the legal costs (see paras. 2.6 and 3.3 above). The Committee observes that the State party refers in general terms to the existence of the Constitutional Court and to the fact that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been respected. The State party fails to identify, however, what remedies would have been effective and accessible in the present cases, in particular in the light of the authors’ argument that the remedy of constitutional challenge is inaccessible to individuals. The Committee recalls its previous jurisprudence, according to which a State party raising an objection of admissibility on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must prove 6 7 GE.24-03814 Mr. Saydawi submits an official document purportedly showing an indicator of equivalent economic situation of €10,726.63. For example, V.T.F. and A.F.L. v. Spain (E/C.12/56/D/6/2015), para. 4.2. 7