- 31 - 81. The Committee holds that, with regard to their expulsion from sites where they have settled illegally, the situation of migrant Roma has not improved since its finding of a violation of Article 31§2 (see Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme, Avis sur le respect des droits des “gens du voyage” et des Roms migrants au regard des réponses récentes de la France aux instances internationales, adopté en assemblée plénière le 22 mars 2012, §§54-55; Collectif National Droit de l’Homme Romeurope, Rapport 2010-2011, Les Roms, boucs-émissaires d’une politique sécuritaire qui cible les migrants et les pauvres, février 2012, sp. pp. 17-18; Observatoire régional de santé d’Ile-de-France, Situation sanitaire et sociale des “Roms migrants” en Ile-de-France, janvier 2012, p. 27). It therefore considers that the violation of Article E read in conjunction with Article 31§2 persists. 82. Consequently, the Committee holds that there is a violation of Article E read in conjunction with Article 31§2. Alleged violation of Article E taken in conjunction with Article 31§2 by reason of a lack of sufficient measures to provide emergency accommodation and reduce homelessness A – Submissions of the parties 1. The complainant organisation 83. Médecins du Monde gives the example of systematic refusals to grant Roma families accommodation under the Act of 5 March 2007 establishing an enforceable right to housing (the DALO Act) on the grounds that there was no evidence of "115" calls (the telephone number of the centre responsible for finding and placing people in emergency accommodation), which evidence, according to Médecins du Monde, is impossible to obtain. 84. Médecins du Monde stresses that the solutions rarely offered by the public authorities do not correspond to the common legal definition of housing but rather to that of emergency accommodation. Such an accommodation is very ill suited to the needs of these people because the members of a family are often separated and the housing is offered for a very short time (from three to four nights). Afterwards, the people are returned to the street. Such offers of emergency accommodation therefore fail to prevent and reduce homelessness, as required by Article 31§2 of the Charter. According to Médecins du Monde, the granting of emergency accommodation entails discriminatory treatment on the basis of origin. 2. The Government 85. The Government does not make any additional arguments relating to the nature of the emergency accommodation and the reduction of homelessness other than those made under Article 31§1 concerning access to housing. It adds only that the