E/C.12/74/D/70/2018 jurisprudence on protection from forced eviction. It will then consider the eviction of the author and her children and address the issues raised in the communication. Protection against forced eviction 8.1 The human right to adequate housing is a fundamental right central to the enjoyment of all economic, social, cultural and environmental and other civil and political rights. 13 The right to housing should be ensured to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources,14 and States parties should take whatever measures are necessary to achieve the full realization of this right to the maximum of their available resources. 15 8.2 Forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the Covenant and can be justified only in the most exceptional circumstances.16 The relevant authorities must ensure that they are carried out in accordance with legislation that is compatible with the Covenant and in accordance with the general principles of reasonableness and the proportionality of the legitimate objective of the eviction to its consequences for the evicted persons. 17 This obligation flows from the interpretation of the State party’s obligations under article 2 (1) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 11, and in accordance with the requirements of article 4, which stipulates the conditions under which such limitations on the enjoyment of the rights under the Covenant are permitted.18 8.3 For an eviction to be justifiable, it must thus meet the following requirements. First, the limitation of the right to adequate housing must be determined by law. Second, it must promote general welfare in a democratic society. Third, it must be suited to the legitimate purpose cited. Fourth, the limitation must be necessary, in the sense that if various means of achieving the goal pursued could reasonably be expected to succeed, the one that interferes least with the right must be used. Lastly, the benefits of the limitation in promoting general welfare must outweigh the impact on the enjoyment of the right being limited. The more serious the impact on the right enshrined in the Covenant is, the greater is the scrutiny that must be given to the grounds invoked for such a limitation. The availability of adequate alternative housing, the personal circumstances of the occupants and their dependants and their cooperation with the authorities in seeking suitable solutions are crucial factors in such an analysis. Moreover, a distinction inevitably needs to be made between an eviction from properties belonging to individuals who need them as a home or to provide vital income and properties belonging to financial institutions or other entities. 19 8.4 The assessment of the proportionality of the measure must be carried out by a judicial or other impartial and independent authority with the power to order the cessation of the violation and to provide an effective remedy. This authority must ascertain whether the eviction is compatible with the Covenant, including with regard to the elements of the proportionality test required by article 4 of the Covenant as described above. 20 Finding an eviction unreasonable at a specific moment in time does not necessarily mean that the occupants cannot be evicted. However, the principles of reasonableness and proportionality might make it necessary to stay or postpone the eviction order so as to avoid subjecting the evicted persons to destitution or violations of other rights enshrined in the Covenant. An eviction order may also depend on other factors, such as an obligation for the administrative authorities to step in to help the occupants with a view to mitigating the consequences of the eviction.21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 GE.23-20361 General comment No. 4 (1991), para. 1. Ibid., para. 7. Ibid., para. 12. Ibid., para. 18, and general comment No. 7 (1997), para. 1. Ben Djazia et al. v. Spain, para. 13.4. Gómez-Limón Pardo v. Spain (E/C.12/67/D/52/2018), para. 9.4. López Albán v. Spain (E/C.12/66/D/37/2018), para. 11.5. Ibid., 11.6. Ibid., para. 11.5. 9