E/C.12/61/D/5/2015 10 (1) of the Covenant. In this regard, the State party has not explained to the Committee why no other options were available to the authors. 17.8 For these reasons, the Committee concludes that the State party has not submitted reasonable arguments to demonstrate that, despite having taken all necessary measures, to the maximum of available resources, it was impossible to provide the authors with alternative housing. C. Conclusion and recommendations 18. Given all the information provided and the particular circumstances of this case, the Committee considers that, in the absence of reasonable arguments on the part of the State party regarding all the measures taken to the maximum of its available resources, the authors’ eviction, without a guarantee of alternative housing by the authorities of the State party as a whole, including the regional authorities of Madrid, constituted a violation of their right to adequate housing. 19. The Committee, acting pursuant to article 9 (1) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the State party violated the authors’ right under article 11 (1), read separately and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and 10 (1) of the Covenant. In the light of the Views contained in the present communication, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party. Recommendations in respect of the authors 20. The State party has an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, in particular: (a) in the event that the authors do not have adequate accommodation, to assess their current situation and, following genuine consultation with them, to grant them public housing or any other measure enabling them to enjoy adequate accommodation, taking into account the criteria established in these Views; (b) to award the authors financial compensation for the violations suffered; and (c) to reimburse the authors for the legal costs reasonably incurred in the processing of this communication. General recommendations 21. The Committee considers that the remedies recommended in the context of individual communications may include guarantees of non-repetition and recalls that the State party has an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. The Committee considers that the State party should ensure that its legislation and the enforcement thereof are consistent with the obligations established under the Covenant. In particular, the State has the obligation to: (a) To adopt appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures to ensure that in judicial proceedings in relation to the eviction of tenants, defendants are able to object or lodge an appeal so that the judge might consider the consequences of eviction and its compatibility with the Covenant; (b) To adopt the necessary measures to resolve the lack of coordination between court decisions and the actions of social services which can result in an evicted person being left without adequate accommodation; (c) To take the necessary measures to ensure that evictions involving persons who do not have the means of obtaining alternative housing are carried out only following genuine consultation with the persons concerned and once the State has taken all essential steps, to the maximum of available resources, to ensure that evicted persons have alternative housing, especially in cases involving families, older persons, children and/or other persons in vulnerable situations; (d) To develop and implement, in coordination with the autonomous communities, to the maximum of available resources, a comprehensive plan to guarantee the right to adequate housing for low-income persons, in keeping with general comment No. GE.17-12396 15