E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 4.3 The State party notes that housing and social assistance are the responsibility of the autonomous communities. It adds that Decree No. 52/2016 of 31 May 2016 of the Governing Council of the Community of Madrid provided for the creation of the emergency social housing stock and the regulation of the allocation of housing in the Community of Madrid. The Ministry of Transport, Housing and Infrastructure of the Community of Madrid is responsible for the allocation of housing owned by the Madrid Social Housing Agency. The ordinary procedure for the allocation of housing involves an objective assessment of circumstances of particular need that makes it possible to accept applications from persons who (a) are of legal age or emancipated minors, (b) have an income of no more than 3.5 times the amount used by the Government to determine eligibility for social welfare and other benefits (in 2018: €17.93 a day, €537.84 a month and €6,454.03 a year), (c) have not been allocated public housing in the previous 10 years unless it was given up for justifiable reasons, (d) are not full owners or holders of the real right of use or enjoyment of a home, except in the event of loss of housing following a divorce and gender-based violence, (e) have been registered or worked for 10 years in the Community of Madrid, except in the event of gender-based violence, (f) do not occupy a property without legal title or the consent of the owner. The Decree goes on to list the situations of particular need, which are as follows: (a) imminent eviction (provided that more than 30 per cent of the family unit’s income goes towards rent), (b) gender-based violence or violence based on race, sexual orientation and identity, religion, beliefs or disability, (c) renting housing unfit for human habitation, (d) residing in substandard housing or temporary buildings, in spaces or buildings not intended for residential use, in hostels, shelters or supervised residences, penitentiary establishments, psychiatric facilities or similar establishments and being able to live independently, (e) living in a dwelling too small for the size of the family (less than 8 m2 per member of the family unit and, in any case, less than 25 usable m 2), (f) being a tenant in a dwelling for which the annual rent is equal to or greater than 30 per cent of the family income, (g) sharing a dwelling owned by another person with another family unit, unless the person sharing is single and he or she is sharing the dwelling with his or her forebears, and (h) living in an unstable situation with consent of the owner of the dwelling, unless the latter is a forebear of the occupant. Decree No. 52/2016 establishes the following scoring system: (a) economic circumstances (10 points up to 1.5 times the amount used by the Government to determine eligibility for social welfare and other benefits, 9 points from 1.5 to 2.5 times the amount and 8 points from 2.5 to 3.5 times the amount), (b) disability rating equal to or greater than 65 per cent (2 points and 1 more point for each other member), (c) dependency (1 point per dependant), (d) family responsibilities (1 point per descendant under 35 years of age or forebear over 65 years of age living with the family unit during the previous two years), (e) gender-based violence and similar situations (3 points), (f) time elapsed since submission of application (0.15 points for three years and 0.15 points for each extra year), (g) guardianship (1 point for successfully leaving guardianship) and (h) other social circumstances that worsen an applicant’s situation (up to 4 points). The State party notes that housing is allocated according to actual availability and in accordance with the score obtained and an assessment of the economic, personal and social circumstances of the family units. It adds that the Decree, its requirements and the scoring system have been made widely known and that the author, who received legal and social advice from the social welfare services, was therefore familiar with them. The author’s 2015 application for low-cost housing was included in the two-bedroom subcategory of housing to be allocated from the general quota. 4.4 The State party is of the view that the communication is inadmissible for manifest lack of substantiation and abuse of rights, as the author allowed her application for low-cost housing to lapse, acknowledged the encroachment and did not attempt to exhaust domestic remedies. The State party believes that the communication had no other purpose than to ensure that the author could stay in the apartment she was occupying. 4.5 In addition, the State party claims that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies, as she has failed to (a) update her application for housing, causing it to lapse, (b) avail herself of domestic remedies, including urgent precautionary measures, to protect her rights and (c) petition the Constitutional Court for amparo in connection with her conviction on charges of encroachment. 4.6 The State party also submits that the eviction of the author from her home did not amount to a forced eviction within the meaning of general comments No. 4 (1991), on the 4 GE.23-20361