E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 8.5 In addition, there must not be alternative measures or measures that involve less interference with the right to housing, and the persons concerned must not remain in or be exposed to a situation constituting a violation of other Covenant or human rights. 22 8.6 The following procedural safeguards should also be in place during eviction proceedings: (a) an opportunity for genuine consultation on alternative accommodation with those affected, and, if a lack of resources means that there are no viable alternatives, a requirement for the administrative authorities to present the available options with a view to ensuring that the eviction will not leave anyone homeless; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) provision, in reasonable time, of information on the proposed evictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to all affected persons; (d) especially where groups of people are involved, the presence of government officials or their representatives during an eviction; (e) proper identification of all persons carrying out the eviction; (f) no execution of eviction orders in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; (g) provision of legal remedies to challenge the eviction; and (h) provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redress from the courts.23 8.7 States parties have an obligation to consider all alternatives to eviction, never to proceed to an eviction if doing so will leave anyone homeless and to ensure that those affected are adequately consulted. 8.8 Forced eviction as a punitive measure is also inconsistent with the norms of the Covenant.24 In this regard, the Committee notes that public policies or legislative measures that criminalize individuals or groups of individuals on the basis of their housing situation may be discriminatory and contrary to the right to adequate housing and to other obligations of States parties to the Covenant, particularly when they affect groups in vulnerable situations.25 The criminalization of a social issue, such as homelessness, is a disproportionate response by the State that does not serve the intended purpose. Criminal law has to be a tool of last resort. The State must seek to respond in other, less harmful ways to the housing shortage and the limited opportunities afforded low-income people to gain access to decent housing, which is often the underlying reason for the offence of encroachment. The Committee is of the view that States parties should ensure that they make available effective and adequate means of challenging forced evictions and the criminalization of persons without access to adequate housing or living in illegal settlements. 26 8.9 The Committee also wishes to point out that women, children, youth, older persons, Indigenous Peoples, ethnic and other minorities and other individuals and groups all suffer disproportionately from the practice of forced eviction. Women in all these groups are especially vulnerable given the extent of statutory and other forms of discrimination that often apply in relation to access to property or accommodation, as well as their particular vulnerability to acts of violence and sexual abuse when they are rendered homeless. 27 Many women experience intersectional forms of discrimination due to the combination of gender and such factors as race, colour, language, religion, political and other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status, such as age, ethnicity, disability and marital, refugee or migrant status, resulting in compounded disadvantage.28 8.10 The Committee has thus taken special note of the factors that have a negative impact on the equal enjoyment by women and men of economic, social and cultural rights in many of its general comments, including those relating to the right to adequate housing. 29 The Committee reiterates that it is incumbent upon States parties to consider whether the application of ostensibly gender-neutral laws, policies and programmes has a negative and 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 10 Ben Djazia et al. v. Spain, para. 15.1. Committee’s general comment No. 7 (1997), para. 15. Ibid. A/HRC/49/48, para. 47. A/HRC/40/61, paras. 41 and 42. General comment No. 7 (1997), para. 10, and general comment No. 26 (2022), para. 13. General comment No. 16 (2005), para. 5. General comment No. 4 (1991), para. 6, and general comment No. 7 (1997), para. 10. GE.23-20361