E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 to review the compatibility of the eviction with the Covenant (see paras. 15.1 and 15.2), on 30 May 2013, Court No. 37 instructed that the Department of Social Affairs and the Government Agency for Family and Social Services of Madrid City Council should be requested to adopt the measures that fall within their competence to protect Mr. Ben Djazia against situations of distress and, in particular, to inform the Court, within 20 days, of the specific measures to be taken to guarantee the right of the minor children to decent and adequate housing. The same request was reiterated on 2 July 2013. Moreover, the Court postponed the eviction on a number of occasions in response to requests by Mr. Ben Djazia. 16.5 The Committee notes the measures adopted by Court No. 37 to ensure that the authors, and in particular their minor children, were not left homeless or exposed to other human rights violations and considers, therefore, that in practice, the Court weighed the potential effects of eviction even though the law did not require it do so. The right to housing in the State party is not a fundamental right that can be directly protected through a remedy of amparo. Moreover, in eviction hearings, judges are not required by law to suspend the eviction until alternative accommodation is available for the person concerned. In fact, the law does not clearly and explicitly establish that judges have this authority or that they can order other authorities, such as social services, to take coordinated measures to prevent an evicted person from becoming homeless. In this context, Court No. 37 ordered the eviction of the authors and their children on 3 October 2013, despite the fact that the authors did not have alternative housing or sufficient income to obtain accommodation on the private market and that there is no record that the Social Services of Madrid responded in a timely manner to the Court’s request. 16.6 As a result, after staying in a SAMUR short-stay shelter, the authors and their children slept in the family car for four days. Consequently, the Committee considers that the authors’ eviction without assurances that alternative accommodation would be available would constitute a violation of the authors’ right to adequate housing, were it not for the fact that the State party convincingly demonstrates that, despite having taken all reasonable measures, to the maximum of available resources, and having taken into consideration the authors’ personal circumstances, it was unable to uphold the right to housing. In this case, the State has an even greater duty to justify the outcome because the authors’ minor children, who were approximately 1 and 3 years old, were affected. The Committee proceeds with its assessment of the reasonableness of the State party’s explanations. Justifications provided by the State party regarding the lack of access to alternative housing 17.1 The Committee notes that the State party does not contest that the authors’ family was in need of public housing and simply argues that the Madrid social services provided assistance to the authors, including in relation to housing, to the maximum of available resources, and that it was Mr. Ben Djazia who, to a large extent, hindered any improvement of his family’s financial situation. 17.2 The Committee considers that States parties, with a view to rationalizing the resources of their social services, may set criteria or conditions that applicants must satisfy in order to receive social services. These conditions, however, must be reasonable and very carefully designed so as to prevent not only any stigmatization but also that the mere behaviour of a person in need of alternative housing be used to justify denying his or her application. In addition, the conditions must be communicated in a transparent, timely and complete manner to the applicant. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the lack of housing is often the result of structural problems, such as high unemployment or systemic patterns of social exclusion, which it is the responsibility of the authorities to resolve through an appropriate, timely and coordinated response, to the maximum of their available resources. 17.3 In this case, the State party does not contend that Mr. Ben Djazia failed to satisfy the criteria or conditions for applying for public housing, but, rather, raises the issue of his behaviour in relation to the search for employment and alternative housing and of satisfying the criteria or conditions for other social benefits. The State party has not, therefore, demonstrated that the authors failed to meet some of the conditions that they had been informed were mandatory in order to obtain social housing. On the contrary, the Committee GE.17-12396 13