E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 2.7 On 19 July 2018, the Leganés Trial Court No. 8 ordered the author to pay the fine in monthly instalments of €18 each and to voluntarily vacate the apartment she was occupying within one month or be evicted on 28 September 2018. The author submitted several applications to the Court for the postponement of the eviction, but all were rejected. 2.8 On 13 September 2018, the author requested information on the status of her application for low-cost housing and was informed that it had lapsed. 2.9 On 28 September 2018, the Leganés Trial Court No. 8 suspended the eviction of the author and gave her another month to vacate the apartment – that is, until 28 October 2018 – or be forcibly evicted on an undetermined date thereafter. This eviction did not take place because there were too few police officers to deal with the neighbours and their reaction, because the author had an anxiety attack and because her younger child had bronchitis. 2.10 On 23 October 2018, the author requested a report on her situation from the social welfare services of the Leganés City Council. 2.11 The author worked on fixed-term contracts on several occasions, but at the time of registration of the communication she had been unemployed since June 2018 and had received €430.27 a month in unemployment benefits until December 2018. After registration of the communication 2.12 On 26 October 2018, the Leganés Trial Court No. 8 ordered that the author and her children be evicted on 29 November 2018. On 26 November 2018, the author requested that the eviction be suspended until the last day of her children’s school year. On 28 November 2018, the Court granted the author’s request and suspended the eviction until 25 June 2019. 2.13 On 17 June 2019, the Court notified the author that the eviction was planned for 25 June 2019. On 21 June 2019, the author, on the strength of the Committee’s request for the adoption of interim measures, again asked, unsuccessfully, for the eviction to be suspended. 2.14 On 25 June 2019, the author and her two children were evicted. After the eviction, they stayed for a few months in the author’s sister’s two-bedroom apartment, in which three adults and four children were living. The author and her children then 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, as well as from the home of the rest of the family and the places around which the children’s lives revolved. Complaint 3. In her initial submission, the author claims that evicting her and her children would be a violation of article 11 of the Covenant, as she does not have adequate alternative housing. The author claims that her income is insufficient to find housing on the private market and that she does not have a social network that can provide her with alternative accommodation. The author claims that, despite her situation of particular vulnerability, all her applications to the Community of Madrid for low-cost housing have been ignored. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 13 September 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. 4.2 First, the State party submits that the treaty bodies should not act as courts of further appeal and that their consideration of a communication should therefore be based on the proven facts and the domestic courts’ assessment and description of the facts.3 In the present case, according to the decision of 21 December 2017 of the Leganés Trial Court No. 8 and that of 25 May 2018 of the Provincial High Court of Madrid, the author’s possession of the apartment, which was unlawful, constituted the criminal offence of encroachment, and there was no exculpatory state of necessity. 3 GE.23-20361 Human Rights Committee, J.H. v. Finland, communication No. 300/1988. 3