E/C.12/55/D/2/2014 10.5 As regards the author ’s absence on 28 September 2012, when an attempt was made to serve notice of the lending institution’s application and the Court’s decision to admit the application, the Committee observes that neither the copy of the record of service of the Madrid Courts Central Notification and Enforcement Service of 28 September 2012, provided by the author, nor any other document, shows that she was present in her usual place of residence and that she had deliberately refused to receive the notice ordered by the Court (see para. 2.4 and notes 3 and 18 above). 10.6 In the light of the Committee’s conclusion on the facts relevant to the case, the main legal problem posed by this communication is whether the author ’s right to housing, established in article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, was violated by the State party as a consequence of a mortgage enforcement process i n which, according to the author, she was not properly notified of the application, thus preventing her from defending her rights under the Covenant. To answer that question, the Committee will first recall certain important components of the right to hous ing, in particular those relating to the legal protection of that right, and then go on to consider the facts of the case. The right to housing and legal protection of that right 11.1 The human right to adequate housing is a fundamental right central t o the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights 20 and is inextricably linked to other human rights, including those set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 21 The right to housing should be ensured to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources, 22 and States parties shall take whatever measures are necessary to achieve the full realization of this right. 23 Many component elements of the right to adequate housing are closely bound up with the provision of domestic legal remedies to ensure the effective enjoyment of the right. 24 11.2 The Committee also recalls that all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats 25 and that instances of forced eviction are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant principles of international law. 26 The Committee considers that States parties should ensure that procedures in the context of forced evictions, or that might affect security of tenure and possibly result in eviction, apply the procedural protections that will guarantee, among other things, a real opportunity for consultation with those affected and adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction. 27 11.3 In addition, the Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant imposes various obligations which are of immediate effect. 28 Therefore, in accordance with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, States parties must take measures to ensure the enjoyment of the rights established in the Covenant “by all appropriate means, __________________ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12/16 See the Committee’s general comment No. 4 (1992), on the right to adequate housing (art. 11, para. 1, of the Covenant), para. 1. Ibid., paras. 7 and 9. Ibid., para. 7. Ibid., para. 12. Ibid., para. 17. Ibid. para. 8 (a). Ibid., para. 18, and the Committee’s general comment No. 7 (1997), on the right to adequate housing (art. 11, para. 1, of the Covenant): Forced evictions, para. 1. See the Committee’s general comment No. 7, para. 15. See the Committee’s general comment No. 3 (1991), on the nature of States parties’ obligations (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), para. 1. GE.15-17368