E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 under the Optional Protocol.50 It also interferes with the Committee’s ability to provide an effective remedy to persons who claim to be victims of a violation of the Covenant. 13.3 The Committee notes that, on 25 June 2019, the author and her children were evicted despite the Committee’s request for interim measures and without having been granted adequate alternative housing following genuine consultation with her. 13.4 As the State party did not explain why the interim measures could not be taken, the Committee is of the view that the State party violated, in the circumstances, article 5 of the Optional Protocol. D. Conclusion and recommendations 14.1 On the basis of all the information provided and in the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee finds that the eviction of the author and her children without an assessment of proportionality by the judicial authorities, including consideration of the disproportionate impact that the eviction could have on the author and her family and the principle of the best interests of the child, and without a guarantee, as part of the procedure, of genuine and adequate consultation or the right of the child to be heard constituted a violation of their right to adequate housing. 14.2 The Committee, acting under article 9 (1) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party violated the right of the author and her children under article 11 (1) of the Covenant read separately and in conjunction with articles 3 and 10 (3). The Committee is also of the view that the State party violated article 5 of the Optional Protocol. In the light of the Views contained in the present communication, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party. Recommendations in respect of the author and her children 15. The State party is under an obligation to provide the author and her children 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 Community of Madrid, starting from the date on which they applied, with a view to providing them with public housing or taking another measure that would enable them to live in adequate housing, bearing in mind the criteria set out in the present Views; (b) providing the author and her children with financial compensation for the violations of their rights; and (c) reimbursing the author for the legal costs reasonably incurred in submitting this communication, at both the domestic and international levels. General recommendations 16. 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 legislation and the enforcement thereof are consistent with the obligations established under the Covenant. In particular, the State party has an obligation to: (a) Ensure that its normative framework allows persons in respect of whom an eviction order is issued and who might consequently be at risk of destitution or of violation of their Covenant rights, including persons who are occupying a dwelling without legal title, to challenge the decision before a judicial or other impartial and independent authority with the power to order the cessation of the violation and to provide an effective remedy so that such authorities can examine the proportionality of the measure in the light of the criteria for limiting the rights enshrined in the Covenant under the terms of article 4; and to consider, where appropriate, the best interests of the child and the disproportionate impact of evictions 50 14 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 33 (2008), para. 19. GE.23-20361