E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 provide the family with the widest possible protection (art. 10 (1) of the Covenant). The obligation of States parties to provide, to the maximum of their available resources, alternative accommodation for evicted persons who need it includes the protection of the family unit, especially when the persons are responsible for the care and education of dependent children. 15.5 In the event that a person is evicted from his or her home without the State granting or guaranteeing alternative accommodation, the State party must demonstrate that it has considered the specific circumstances of the case and that, despite having taken all reasonable measures, to the maximum of its available resources, it has been unable to uphold the right to housing of the person concerned. The information provided by the State party should enable the Committee to consider the reasonableness of the measures taken in accordance with article 8 (4) of the Optional Protocol.33 The judicial proceedings before Court No. 37 16.1 The Committee will consider whether the authors’ eviction from their rental accommodation constituted a violation of their right to adequate housing. The Committee notes that the lessor notified Mr. Ben Djazia of her plans to terminate and not renew the contract on 15 March and 12 July 2012, in accordance with articles 9 and 10 of the Urban Tenancies Act and article 1569 (1) of the Civil Code, that the lease expired on 31 August 2012 and that the authors nevertheless refused to leave the accommodation. In response to a complaint by the lessor, on 30 May 2013, Court No. 37 ordered the authors’ eviction on the ground that the term of the contract had expired, in accordance with articles 440 (4) and 549 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the authors’ eviction was carried out in accordance with the law. 16.2 The Committee notes that the authors refused to leave their rented room despite having been notified sufficiently in advance by the lessor of her intention not to renew the lease and that the lease expired on 31 August 2012. In addition, starting in June 2012, the authors were unable to pay the lessor the monthly rent. In the absence of any information indicating that the lessor’s action was not reasonable or necessary, the Committee considers that there were legitimate reasons for the authors’ eviction and that it could therefore be justified. 16.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that judicial guarantees were not observed during the proceedings and that their request for legal aid was denied by the competent authorities. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that Court No. 37 observed all due process guarantees applicable under the Covenant (see para. 6.3). The Committee notes that Mr. Ben Djazia was able to obtain legal aid and be represented pro bono throughout the proceedings and that his lawyer submitted various judicial applications; that Mr. Ben Djazia was informed sufficiently in advance of the termination of his lease and of his eviction; and that the eviction took place at an appropriate time in the presence of officials of the court, the police and the representatives of the parties. 16.4 The Committee also takes note of the authors’ allegations that Court No. 37 ordered the eviction without considering the possible consequences of this measure for the authors, in particular on their minor children, and that the legislation does not provide for the possibility, in judicial eviction proceedings, of defendants’ objecting or lodging an appeal to explain the consequences of the eviction but that their only option is to claim that they have paid the rent, in full or in part. In this regard, the Committee observes that by its decisions of 30 May and of 2 and 22 July 2013, Court No. 37 ordered and subsequently confirmed the authors’ eviction pursuant to articles 440 (4) (as amended by Act No. 37/2011), 549 (3) and 556 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Under these provisions and article 444 (1) of the same Act, during the proceedings, the defendant may only make claims relating to the payment of the rent or make a formal statement of intent to pay all amounts owed and thus interrupt eviction proceedings. Furthermore, the Committee notes that despite the absence of specific legislation that would allow a judge in eviction proceedings 33 12 See 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 (2007). GE.17-12396