- 25 - Bordeaux. The Government acknowledges that these activities are nothing but a local solution to a nationwide problem, but also sees them as a sign of a true commitment on the part of the state and the local authorities and of a desire to find new and appropriately adapted solutions to the problem. B – Assessment of the Committee 53. The Committee recalls that persons, including children, unlawfully present on the territory of a state party do not come within the personal scope of Article 31§1 of the Charter (Defence for Children International (DCI) v. the Netherlands, Complaint No. 47/2008, decision on the merits of 20 October 2009, §45; European Roma and Travellers Forum v. France (ERTF), Complaint No. 64/2011, decision on the merits of 24 January 2012, §111). However, since it has been established that certain migrant Roma are lawfully present in France, even though it is extremely complex to clearly distinguish to whom the protection guaranteed by the Charter and its Appendix applies without restrictions, the Committee considers that this should in any case not lead to a situation where individuals fully protected by the Charter are deprived of their rights under it (see §34 above). As a consequence, it decides to consider the issue under Article 31§1 with regard to the migrant Roma lawfully present in France. 54. Under Article 31§1, states parties shall guarantee to everyone the right to housing and promote access to housing of an adequate standard. The Committee recalls that states must take the legal and practical measures which are necessary and adequate with a view of ensuring the effective protection of the right in question. They enjoy a margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Charter, in particular as regards the balance to be struck between the general interest and the interest of a specific group and the choices to be made in terms of priorities and resources (European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 31/2005, decision on the merits of 18 October 2006, §35). 55. The Committee recalls that the wording of Article 31 cannot be interpreted as imposing on states an obligation of “results”. However, it notes that the rights recognised in the Charter must take a practical and effective, rather than purely theoretical, form (International Movement ATD Fourth World v. France, complaint No. 33/2006, decision on the merits of 5 December 2007, §59). 56. Given that it is exceptionally complex and particularly expensive to realise the rights enshrined in Article 31§1, states parties must take measures allowing them to achieve the objectives of the Charter within a reasonable time limit, making measurable progress and to an extent consistent with the maximum use of available resources (European Roma and Travellers Forum (ERTF) v. France, Complaint No. 64/2011, decision on the merits of 24 January 2012, §96). 57. The Committee also recalls that, under Article 31§1, persons legally residing or regularly working in the territory of the Party concerned who do not have housing of an