E/C.12/69/D/48/2018 had been granted extensions to give her time to vacate the property, that social services had been made aware of the situation, that the author had received an offer of shared accommodation, which she had declined, and that the interests of the party seeking enforcement had to be taken into account and a balance achieved between addressing the author’s situation, on the one hand, and enforcing the decision and putting an end to the criminally unlawful conduct, on the other. 12.4 The Committee considers that, in general, States parties enjoy a degree of discretion when regulating matters such as the unlawful occupation of property and when deciding on judicial remedies aimed at protecting the peaceful enjoyment of property in a democratic society. Nevertheless, such discretion is not unlimited and must be compatible with the obligations of States parties under the Covenant and other applicable human rights treaties. In particular, the Committee believes that, if a person is evicted by means of criminal proceedings, the relevant authorities must ensure that they are carried out in accordance with legislation that is compatible with the Covenant and in accordance with the general principles of reasonableness and proportionality between the legitimate objective of the eviction and its consequences for the evicted persons.24 This obligation arises from the interpretation of the State party’s obligations under article 2 (1) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 11, and in accordance with the requirements of article 4, which stipulates the conditions under which limitations on the enjoyment of the rights under the Covenant are permitted. 25 Thus, evictions as a consequence of criminal proceedings must not be the norm. Moreover, they must be regulated by law, promote the common good in a democratic society, be appropriate to the legitimate aim being sought and be strictly necessary. The State party must, in each individual case, justify the use of criminal proceedings to evict a person and consider whether other less onerous means exist to achieve the legitimate aim of the limitation. 12.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the author has not presented, either before the national authorities or before the Committee, allegations related to the fact that her case was examined in the context of criminal proceedings. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which, when the documentation submitted discloses facts established in adversarial proceedings, regarding which the parties have had the opportunity to present their respective observations and comments, that clearly reveal a possible violation of a provision of the Covenant that has not been cited, the Committee is empowered to examine the possible violation of articles not invoked by the parties, provided that it does not look beyond the claims made in the communication.26 Given the specific circumstances of the present case and in view of the elements presented by the parties, the Committee believes that an examination of this point is not relevant to the present case. 12.6 The Committee notes the State party’s view that, as eviction was unavoidable, social services’ offers of temporary emergency housing for the author constituted a response to the situation, to the maximum of the State party’s available resources, and demonstrate that the State party has fulfilled its obligations under the Covenant to take all steps, to the extent of the resources available, to provide the author with alternative housing. The Committee notes that the author declined the offers of shared temporary housing, which, according to the social services, is part of a socio-residential pathway designed to support families in achieving autonomy and accessing housing within their financial grasp on the private market. The Committee notes that the author declined this offer mainly because it involved temporary housing. With respect to the offer of assistance in finding housing within the author’s financial means, the author merely states that the focus should have been on negotiating with the company that owns the property she was occupying, and there is no indication that the author contacted social services again to obtain more information on any of the three options. The Committee notes that the author has provided no evidence that would indicate that the offers of temporary accommodation would be incompatible with human dignity, unsafe or otherwise unacceptable. Therefore, in the absence of any other elements indicating that the State party has failed to take all steps, to the maximum of its available resources, to protect 24 25 26 GE.21-04761 Gómez-Limón Pardo v. Spain (E/C.12/67/D/52/2018), para. 8.2. Ibid., para. 9.4. Trujillo Calero v. Ecuador (E/C.12/63/D/10/2015), para. 9.10. 11