GYLA protected the interests of the IDP family, which was refused alternative accommodation by the LEPL – Agency for Internally Displaced persons, Eco-migrants and Livelihood. As a basis for the refusal, the agency pointed to the fact that the family lived in an apartment owned by a next-of-kin, and there was no need to provide housing.

GYLA argued in court that the agency's refusal was based on a misinterpretation of the law and that living in an apartment owned by a next-of-kin did not deprive the IDP family of the right to be provided with alternative accommodation. The courts of all three instances shared GYLA's position and the court dispute ended in favor of the IDP family. As a result, the IDP woman and her minor children will receive housing.