E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In a communication of 10 December 2014, the author submitted her comments on the observations of the State party. The author denies that she owns another property or lives elsewhere and provides documents to show that the mortgaged property is her normal residence. 7 She points out that although the State party has access to various public registers and archives, such as the civil register, the tax office and the registers kept by each municipality, it questions these fa cts without adducing any evidence or providing documentation. She states that she is divorced, has no children and lives alone in the mortgaged property and that, when she referred in her motion for reconsideration to the possibility of notice being served at the home of a family member, she was referring to her mother ’s home, the address of which was known to the lending institution. 5.2 The author points out that her communication concerning a violation of article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, arose out of the failure to notify her of the mortgage enforcement proceedings in respect of her property, or of the Court ’s decision to admit the enforcement application, which prevented her from defending her right to housing in the courts. 5.3 According to the author, article 686, paragraph 3, of the Civil Procedure Act allows notification by posting of notice only when it has proved impossible to notify the debtor. Moreover, according to the State party’s procedural rules and the Constitutional Court’s case law, notification by posting of notice is in general done only when all possible means of serving notice in person have been exhausted, and notification has at least been left in the person’s letter box. 8 5.4 The author draws attention to the difference in the way the Court acted when giving notice of the auction of the mortgaged property, inasmuch as, after two unsuccessful attempts to serve notice in person, she was left an advice that enabled her to take effective cognizance of the auction order. 5.5 The author argues that the remedies she initiated with the Court were appropriate and permitted the Court to consider the violation of her fundamental rights caused by the posting of notice and to provide redress. She further claims that, according to the case law of the Constitutional Court, her interlocutory challenge to the Court order on the auction, referred to by the State party, was not a necessary remedy that needed to be exhausted before submitting her appeal in amparo to the Constitutional Court. 9 5.6 In the author’s view, the State party’s references to the amendments to the legal order in order to provide better protection for mortgage holders are neither applicable nor relevant to the present case. Third-party submissions 6.1. Under article 8, paragraph 3, of the Optional Protocol, subject to the rules governing the consideration of communications and to authorization by the Committee, third parties may submit documentation relevant to the case under consideration. This documentation must be transmitted to the parties. On 4 February __________________ 7 8 9 GE.15-17368 The author provides a certificate of residence issued by the city of Madrid dated 14 November 2014, and copies of her receipts for the Madrid property tax 2014 and the Madrid waste -collection tax 2014, issued by the Madrid tax office and which give the address of the mortgaged property as the author’s place of residence. The author refers to the fourth legal argument in Constitutional Court judgement No. 59/2014 of 5 May 2014. The author refers to Constitutional Court judgement No. 216/2013 of 19 December 2013. 7/16