E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 at least as early as 1998.11 His depressive or negative attitude towards Social Services is attributable to his circumstances as an unemployed person without social benefits and facing serious difficulties in providing food and clothing for his family. 5.3 The municipal social services, as well as other authorities to which the authors appealed, had no genuine interest in their case. The court-appointed lawyer refused to defend the case, claiming that it was untenable, and the Madrid Bar Association denied Mr. Ben Djazia’s request to be assigned another lawyer. 5.4 In its submission, the State party refers to an offer by Social Services for Ms. Bellili and the children to be accommodated in a shelter — without Mr. Ben Djazia — which would have led to the separation of the family and even greater psychological effects on the children than the eviction. In any event, the authors argue that having been invited to leave the SAMUR short-stay shelter, as their stay there could not be extended, they were not offered any decent alternative accommodation. 5.5 The State party did not grant Mr. Ben Djazia’s applications for social housing as far back as 1999 and in subsequent years it reduced the number of public housing units, despite the fact that it did not have sufficient housing to deal with emergency situations stemming from the severe economic crisis. The authorities in Madrid sold public housing to investment companies, thus reducing the available housing stock. For example, in 2013, the Madrid Housing Institute sold 2,935 houses and other properties to a private entity for €201 million for budget balancing purposes.12 State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 17 September 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the merits and reiterated its arguments concerning the inadmissibility of the communication. 6.2 The State party notes that after he was notified of the claim, Mr. Ben Djazia was provided with a legal representative and lawyer free of charge. However, the lawyer was of the view that the claim was untenable, an opinion that was confirmed by the Legal Aid Commission. Nonetheless, Mr. Ben Djazia was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing. 6.3 The State party reiterates that the situation is not a forced eviction even if the authors consider it as such. The judicial proceedings before Court No. 37 provided all applicable due process guarantees under the Covenant. 13 Mr. Ben Djazia was informed sufficiently in advance of the termination of the lease, in March 2012. During that time, he had the opportunity to communicate with the Social Services of the Community of Madrid and Madrid City Council. The eviction took place at an appropriate time in the presence of officials of the Court, the police and the representatives of the parties who wished to attend. Mr. Ben Djazia was allowed to appear in proceedings before Court No. 37 and to appeal. He was also able to lodge an amparo application before the Constitutional Court and to file a request for interim measures with the European Court of Human Rights. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 22 February 2016, the authors responded to the State party’s observations on the merits and reiterated the allegations of a violation of article 11 of the Covenant 7.2 The trial before Court No. 37 did not observe judicial guarantees. The eviction decision did not take into account the possible consequences of this measure for the authors, and in particular for their minor children. The legislation does not provide for the possibility for defendants in judicial eviction proceedings to object or lodge an appeal to 11 12 13 6 The authors provide one certificate of employment as an electronic technician, issued by a private company (1993–1996), and seven certificates of attendance at technical courses in 2001, 2004, 2006– 2008 and 2015, issued by public and private entities. The authors refer to a report by Amnesty International, Evicted Rights: Right to housing and mortgage evictions in Spain, Madrid, Amnesty International-Spain, 2015, p. 40. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 7, para. 15. GE.17-12396