E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 notes that the author applied to the Madrid Housing Institute for social housing on at least three to four occasions from the time his children were born and that, on 4 June 2013, he reiterated his request to the Madrid Housing Institute, attaching the decision of Court No. 37 of 30 May 2013. In the light of the imminence of the eviction, Mr. Ben Djazia requested Court No. 37 to instruct the Social Services of the Madrid Community and City Council to request that the Madrid Housing Institute and the Municipal Housing and Land Company provide him with alternative housing. 17.4 The State party also argues that every year the Madrid Housing Institute receives an average of 8,000 requests for public housing and allocates an average of 260 housing units in Madrid. The State party seems to be implying that even though the authors met the criteria for receiving public housing, it was not granted to them in 2012 or 2013, when the eviction was imminent, owing to the limited resources available. 17.5 Noting the measures adopted in favour of the authors (see para. 4.5), the Committee considers the State party’s arguments as insufficient to demonstrate that it has made all possible effort, using all available resources, to realize, as a matter of urgency, the right to housing of persons who, like the authors, are in a situation of dire need. For example, the State party did not explain that denying the authors social housing was necessary because it was putting its resources towards a general policy or an emergency plan to be implemented by the authorities with a view to progressively realizing the right to housing, especially for persons in a particularly vulnerable situation. Moreover, the State party has not explained to the Committee why the regional authorities in Madrid, such as the Madrid Housing Institute, sold part of the public housing stock to investment companies, thereby reducing the availability of public housing, despite the fact that the number of public housing units available annually in Madrid was significantly fewer than the demand, nor has it explained how this measure was duly justified and was the most suitable for ensuring the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant. For instance, in 2013, the Madrid Housing Institute sold 2,935 houses and other properties to a private company for €201 million, justifying the measure by a need to balance the budget. 17.6 The Committee considers that States parties have a certain amount of discretion to make the most appropriate use of tax revenue with a view to guaranteeing the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant, 34 and that, in certain circumstances, they may take deliberately retrogressive measures. However, in such cases, the State must demonstrate that the decision was based on the most thorough consideration possible and was justified in respect of all the rights under the Covenant and that all available resources were used. 35 In times of severe economic and financial crisis, all budgetary changes or adjustments affecting policies must be temporary, necessary, proportional and nondiscriminatory.36 In this case, the State party has not convincingly explained why it was necessary to adopt the retrogressive measure described in the preceding paragraph, which resulted in a reduction of the amount of social housing precisely at a time when demand for it was greater owing to the economic crisis. 17.7 Lastly, the Committee proceeds with its consideration of the State party’s argument that SAMUR notified the authors that, if they had not found accommodation by the time they had reached the maximum stay at the short-stay shelter, accommodation could be offered to Ms. Bellili and the children at a women’s centre and to Mr. Ben Djazia at a homeless shelter, and that the Social Services of the Madrid Community and City Council had offered the authors a similar alternative. If the authors had accepted this offer, the family would have been split up, in violation of the State’s duty to grant the greatest and widest possible protection to the family, as the foundation of society, in keeping with article 34 35 36 14 Communication No. 1/2013, López Rodríguez v. Spain, Views adopted on 4 March 2016, para. 13.3. See also the Committee’s letter of 16 May 2012 (see footnote 31). General comment No. 4, para. 9. See also the Committee’s statement regarding an evaluation of the obligation to take steps to the “maximum of available resources” under an optional protocol to the Covenant, paras. 6, 8 and 11. The Committee’s letter of 16 May 2012 (see footnote 31). See the Committee’s statement on public debt, austerity measures and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2016), para. 4. GE.17-12396