E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 the judicial proceedings did not provide the necessary judicial guarantees and that the authorities did not grant the family public housing. Moreover, the Community of Madrid sold part of its public housing stock to private investment funds in the middle of a severe economic crisis. 12.3 The State party contends that the authors faced eviction at the initiative of an individual (the lessor), that the judiciary intervened only as a mediator, and that the proceedings before Court No. 37 observed all judicial guarantees. In addition, the State party points out that the Social Services of the Community and City Council of Madrid assisted the authors in different ways (see para 4.5), to the extent of available resources, including grants and other financial support and temporary shelter for 10 days following the eviction, and that it was to a large extent Mr. Ben Djazia’s attitude which hindered any improvement of the family’s financial situation. 12.4 The facts undisputed by the parties are that the authors and their children lived in a rented room in Madrid and that it was their primary residence; that the legal proceedings initiated by the lessor against Mr. Ben Djazia before Court No. 37 concluded with the eviction of the authors and their children on 3 October 2013; that although Mr. Ben Djazia received unemployment benefits and a minimum income allowance during various periods (see footnotes 2 and 8), at the time of the eviction, the authors did not have alternative housing or sufficient income to seek other rental accommodation; that Mr. Ben Djazia applied, unsuccessfully, to the Madrid Housing Institute for public housing on numerous occasions between 1999 and 2011 (see footnotes 1 and 9); and that in 2012 and 2013 the Madrid Housing Institute, like other institutions of the Community of Madrid, sold 2,935 homes to private companies/investment funds (see footnote 12). 12.5 With regard to the authors’ situation after staying in the SAMUR short-stay shelter, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that SAMUR informed the authors that, if necessary, accommodation could be provided for Ms. Bellili and the children in a women’s shelter and for Mr. Ben Djazia in a homeless shelter. However, the authors allege that when they were asked to leave the short-stay shelter, they were not offered any alternative decent accommodation. The Committee notes that the material submitted by both parties in this connection (see footnotes 4 and 7) shows merely that in August 2013 the social services centre of Tetuán informed Mr. Ben Djazia that in the event the family was evicted and had no alternative housing, protection measures would be taken in respect of the children. The Committee also notes that the State party does not contest the authors’ allegation that after staying in the short-stay shelter for 10 days, they and their children had to sleep in the family car for 4 days, until an acquaintance provided them with accommodation for several weeks. 12.6 The Committee further notes that the authors do not contest the information contained in the report of the social services centre in Madrid, of 24 April 2015, according to which the centre intervened on behalf of Mr. Ben Djazia, who subsequently received occasional financial support in 2012 and 2013 for the coverage of basic needs (see para. 4.5). 12.7 In the light of the Committee’s determination of the relevant facts and of the arguments submitted by the parties, the fundamental issue raised by the communication is whether the authors’ eviction from their rental accommodation by order of Court No. 37, on grounds that the contract had ended, and the authorities’ failure to grant alternative housing constituted a violation of the right to adequate housing under article 11 (1) of the Covenant, taking into account the fact that the authors were left homeless. In considering this central issue, the Committee will first address the State party’s argument that the communication deals with a conflict between individuals that does not fall under the Covenant. The Committee will begin by recalling certain relevant aspects of the right to housing, particularly in relation to persons living in rented accommodation and the legal safeguards of this right. GE.17-12396 9