E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 as a home or to provide vital income and properties belonging to banks, financial institutions or other entities.41 10.3 The Committee notes that, in its ruling, the Leganés Trial and Investigation Court No. 8 held that the author’s renovation of the apartment showed that she had sufficient savings to obtain housing on her own, that the author had relatives with whom she could live and that, as a consequence, the unstable housing situation she claimed to be in did not constitute a state of necessity. Although the Provincial High Court acknowledged the possibility that the occupation was the result of such a situation, it reached the same conclusion on the exculpatory circumstance put forward as a defence. 10.4 The Committee notes that, according to the author’s comments on the State party’s observations, the apartment in question, which belonged to the Madrid Social Housing Agency, was left unoccupied after the eviction. 10.5 The Committee notes that the State party’s judicial authorities examined the author’s socioeconomic situation only as it related to an exculpatory state of necessity. It points out in this regard that this examination does not replace a specific and autonomous analysis (or make up for the public authorities’ failure to undertake such an analysis) of the proportionality of the eviction that takes into account the particular circumstances in which the alleged victims find themselves. 10.6 The Committee is of the view that, in the light of the specific circumstances of the present case, proper consideration of the proportionality of the eviction would have involved taking into account the socioeconomic vulnerability of the author and her children, the best interests of the children, the particular effects of the eviction on the author, a single mother of two children without the wherewithal for adequate housing or other viable alternatives, the social purpose of the Social Housing Agency apartment that the author and her children lived in, the author’s previous applications for low-cost housing, the availability of low-cost housing from the relevant administrative authorities and the existence of alternative means of resolving the problem. To assess the author’s situation, the courts should have made arrangements for genuine and effective consultation with her and requested the administrative authorities to provide information on any low-cost housing available and on the author’s socioeconomic situation. Similarly, the courts should have respected the children’s right to be heard.42 10.7 The Committee is therefore of the view that the failure to carry out a sufficiently comprehensive analysis of the proportionality of the eviction constituted a violation by the State party of the right to housing, enshrined in article 11 of the Covenant, of the author and her children. Consultation with the author 11.1 The Committee notes that the State party claims that it has ensured that there is a genuine process of consulting the persons affected by eviction. This process existed insofar as the author had the opportunity to file appeals and request assistance from the social welfare services – there were also reasonable and sufficient notice periods. 11.2 The Committee also notes that the author applied several times to the judicial and administrative authorities for the suspension of the eviction and even requested a meeting with the social welfare services councillor at the Ministry of Transport, Housing and Infrastructure. The eviction was suspended twice, the first time because one of the author’s children had a case of bronchitis and there were not enough police officers for the eviction and the second time to allow the author’s children to finish the school year. 11.3 The Committee notes that there has been no genuine consultation with the persons concerned. Although the author applied to various administrative offices and contested the eviction orders in court, there is no evidence of a genuine and effective judicial consultation mechanism that would make it possible to consider alternatives to eviction. 41 42 12 El Mourabit Ouazizizi et al. v. Spain (E/C.12/72/D/133/2019). B.J. and P.J. v. Czechia (CRC/C/93/D/139/2021), paras. 8.13 and 8.14. GE.23-20361