E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 anyone found liable for encroachment; according to the State party, the author was aware of this provision when she submitted her application. 4.8 The State party concludes that the author’s case does not amount to a forced eviction, that the due process of law required under the Covenant was followed and that the author and her family have received continuous assistance, to the extent of the public resources available, from the Spanish public authorities. Comments from counsel for the author on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 13 March 2022, the author’s representative submitted her comments on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 5.2 First, the author’s representative states that, on 25 June 2019, the author and her two children, who had no alternative accommodation, were evicted in disregard of the request for interim measures. The author’s representative states that the apartment in question, publicly owned, is still empty, evidence of a lack of genuine policies for affordable housing. 5.3 Second, the author’s representative notes that she is not in close contact with the family and that, after the eviction, the author and her two children had to spend several months in the author’s sister’s apartment, a two-bedroom apartment in which three adults and four children were living. She states that the author and her two children had to move to a rural dwelling belonging to the author’s parents in Calalberche, in the Province of Toledo, more than 50 km from the author’s place of work and the rest of the family. 5.4 The author’s representative concludes that evicting her was a violation of her right to adequate housing. B. Committee’s consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 10 (2) of its provisional rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol, whether or not the communication is admissible. 6.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication constitutes an abuse of rights because of the author’s failure to take all the steps she should have when she applied to the Social Housing Agency for housing. The Committee notes, however, that the author’s alleged failure to take all those steps does not, in itself, constitute an abuse of the right to submit a communication for the purposes of article 3 (2) (f) of the Optional Protocol. 8 Moreover, the Committee notes that, according to the author, she applied for low-cost housing in October 2015 and that in September 2018 she requested an update on the status of her application, at which time she was notified that it had lapsed. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author allowed her application to lapse. However, the Committee notes that, according to the State party, the requirements for access to low-cost housing in the Community of Madrid include not occupying a property without legal title or the consent of the owner. Since the author was squatting, her application for low-cost housing was bound to be unsuccessful. 6.3 The Committee cannot therefore conclude that the author’s alleged lack of diligence constitutes an abuse of the right of submission of a communication. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that article 3 (2) (f) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. 6.4 Furthermore, the Committee notes that the State party argues that the author’s failure to follow up with the administrative authorities between 2015 and 2018 on her application for low-cost housing also constitutes a failure to exhaust available domestic remedies. The author, for her part, claims to have exhausted domestic remedies, as she challenged the eviction order and applied for low-cost housing on several occasions. The Committee is of the view that, for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Optional Protocol, “domestic remedies” 8 6 Taghzouti Ezqouihel v. Spain (E/C.12/69/D/56/2018), para. 6.3. GE.23-20361