UUI, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 49: Henvendelse af 18/11-10 fra Amnesty International vedr. udvisninger til Irak og Dublin-overførelser til Grækenland

CONTENTSGLOSSARY...................................................................................................................51. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................61.1. CONTEXT...........................................................................................................72. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................113. DETENTION PRACTICES .........................................................................................123.1. DETENTION OF IRREGULAR MIGRANTS ...........................................................123.2. DETENTION OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS...................................................................143.3. CRIMINALIZATION OF IRREGULAR MIGRATION ................................................183.4. EFFECTIVENESS OF REMEDIES CHALLENGING DETENTION ..............................203.5. ACCESS TO LEGAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE....................................................223.5.1. ACCESS TO COUNSEL AND RIGHT TO LEGAL ASSISTANCE ANDINTERPRETATION ...............................................................................................223.5.2. COMMUNICATION WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD...........................................243.6. POLICE IRREGULARITIES.................................................................................263.6.1. IRREGULARITIES DURING DETENTION ......................................................263.6.2. IRREGULARITIES UPON RELEASE .............................................................273.6.3. IRREGULARITIES IN THE HANDLING OF ASYLUM-APPLICATIONS ...............274. DETENTION OF UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN.........................................................294.1. PROLONGED DETENTION.................................................................................304.2. UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN DETAINED WITH ADULTS....................................325. DETENTION CONDITIONS.......................................................................................34

5.1. IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRES AND OTHER HOLDING FACILITIES........... 355.1.1. MERSINIDIOU IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRE .................................... 365.1.2. VENNA IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRE, RODOPI ................................. 365.1.3. HOLDING FACILITY FOR IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, ATTIKA ALIENS’ POLICEDIRECTORATE .................................................................................................... 375.1.4. HOLDING FACILITY FOR IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, THESSALONIKI ............... 375.2. BORDERGUARD STATIONS AND POLICE STATIONS .......................................... 375.2.1. SOUFLI BORDERGUARD STATION, EVROS ................................................. 385.2.2. FERRES BORDERGUARD STATION, EVROS ................................................ 385.2.3. ATHENS AIRPORT DETENTION AREA (ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS) .............. 395.3. INHUMAN TREATMENT DURING TRANSFER .................................................... 406. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 427. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 44ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................... 50

GLOSSARYCERDCPTUN Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscriminationCouncil of Europe's Committee for the Prevention ofTorture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishmentUN Committee on the Rights of the ChildEuropean Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental FreedomsEuropean Council on Refugees and ExilesEuropean Commission against Racism and IntoleranceEcumenical Refugee ProgrammeEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean UnionEuropean Refugee FundGreek Council for RefugeesHellenic League for Human RightsHuman Rights WatchInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsMédecins Sans FrontièresNon-governmental organizationOffice of the High Commissioner for Human RightsOfficial JournalCouncil of Europe Parliamentary AssemblyPresidential Decree1951 Convention relating to the Status of RefugeesSeparated Children in Europe ProgramUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNRefugee Agency)

1. INTRODUCTIONThe Greek authorities should undertake a comprehensive overhaul of the legislativeframework, policies and practices regarding the detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers, including in particular the treatment of unaccompanied children.These are the key conclusions from Amnesty International’s latest research into this issuewhich shows that currently, immigration related detention in Greece is used without regard toits necessity or proportionality, and not as a measure of last resort. Asylum-seekers andirregular migrants, including unaccompanied children, are routinely detained at the country’spoints of entry and, within three days, are issued with an administrative deportation order.1Usually, the deportation order is accompanied by an order for the continuation of detention.No alternatives to detention are examined.In addition, Greek law makes irregular entry into and exit out of the country a criminaloffence. Moreover, as of June 2009, the maximum period of detention for the purposes ofadministrative deportation has increased from three to six months.In addition, the legislative framework for immigration detention, along with a poor system ofguardianship and limited special reception facilities to which unaccompanied children couldbe transferred, also results in cases where such children are being detained for long periodsin inadequate or poor conditions. Vulnerable groups such as victims of torture or trafficking,and pregnant women, are also detained.Amnesty International has also identified impediments to detainees’ access to legal counseland to contact with the outside world, as well as limited or lack of access to interpreters,medical assistance and social care in the detention areas where irregular migrants andasylum-seekers are held.This lack of qualified personnel such as interpreters, lawyers and social workers can lead to afailure in identifying many individuals who are in need of international protection, and tomembers of vulnerable groups not receiving appropriate care and support. The failure toidentify individuals in need of international protection means that their cases are notconsidered and they may be at risk ofrefoulement.Asylum-seekers and irregular migrants have complained about a lack of information about thegrounds for and/or length of their detention, as well as on asylum determination anddeportation procedures, reasons for transfer to other immigration detention centres and afailure to explain or translate documents issued in Greek which they are expected to sign.There are also concerns about the identification process of the nationalities of irregularmigrants and asylum-seekers and allegations that unaccompanied children have beenregistered as adults, despite their declarations to the contrary.Furthermore, prolonged detention and poor detention conditions act as a deterrent for

individuals who intend to apply for asylum or asylum-seekers who have already lodged anasylum application. In 2009, refugee recognition rates in Greece at first instance remainedclose to zero per cent.2In the vast majority of detention areas visited by Amnesty International delegates, conditionsranged from inadequate to very poor. Among the deficiencies identified were: prolongeddetention in facilities designed only for short stays; unaccompanied minors being detainedamong adults; limited access to medical assistance; overcrowding; lack of hygiene; a lack ofproducts for personal hygiene; lack of exercise; and restricted access to clean water. AmnestyInternational has continued to receive allegations of ill-treatment by coastguards and police,as well as allegations of inhuman treatment during transfer from one immigration detentioncentre to another.Concerns about the failure of the Greek authorities to respect international standards withregard to the detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers, including unaccompaniedchildren, have been raised by Amnesty International for several years. Such concerns includethe grounds and length of detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers held atimmigration detention centres and borderguard stations, poor detention conditions, and thedetainees’ lackof accessto assistance, including legal, social and medical support.3Over the past few years, a number of inter-governmental organizations such as the Council ofEurope’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and its Commissioner for HumanRights, as well as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and variousinternational and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have also raised these andother issues regarding the detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers with the Greekauthorities.4Amnesty International welcomes the fact that the current Greek government hasacknowledged a number of problems in immigration detention facilities, announcing thatchanges were needed and that it was taking forward a number of proposals to address theseissues. However, the organization believes these are not sufficient to address thelongstanding and deep rooted failures by Greece to respect its international obligations inthis regard, and concludes this report by setting out a number of detailed recommendationswhich it believes, if implemented, would significantly advance the respect of the humanrights of migrants and asylum-seekers in the country.5

1.1. CONTEXTAmnesty International recognizes the challenges posed to many countries of the EuropeanUnion (EU), particularly those on its southern border, which are presented by large and mixedflows of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers. The signature response of European states tothe challenges, however, remains repressive, showing a consistent pattern of human rightsviolations linked to the interception, detention, and expulsion by states of foreign nationals,including those seeking international protection. In the case of Greece, as outlined above,particular concerns have focused around the practice of the detention of people in suchmigration flows, as well as the conditions in which they have been held.For example, in June 2009, following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights(ECtHR) inS.D. v Greece,Amnesty International reiterated its serious concerns about

conditions in which asylum-seekers were being detained in Greece. The ECtHR hadconcluded that the conditions in which the applicant was detained, including lack of medicalassistance, ability to exercise, and communication with the outside world, combined with theexcessive time spent in detention, amounted to degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).6The ECtHR also held that since theapplicant could not have been deported pending the outcome of his asylum application, hisdetention, with the view to deporting him, had no legal basis in Greek law, at least after thedate that his application was officially registered. As a result, the Court found Greece inviolation of Article 5(1) of the ECHR (right to liberty).7In addition, in June 2009, Amnesty International raised concerns over legislativeamendments increasing the maximum period of administrative detention from three to sixmonths, with the possibility of a further extension of up to 12 months, making it a possibletotal of 18 months.8Also, in August 2009, Amnesty International wrote to the Greek authorities to express,amongst other issues, its serious concerns over reports regarding the conditions of detentionof groups of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants who had been transferred fromimmigration detention centres on Greek islands to Athens, and then to the north-easternregion of Greece for the purpose of deportation, as well as their treatment during transfers.9In its March 2010 report,The Dublin II Trap: Transfers of asylum-seekers to Greece,Amnesty International raised concerns about the automatic detention of people returned toGreece under the Dublin Regulation and the conditions in which they – particularlyvulnerable individuals such as children - were being held at Athens airport.10It is also worth noting that in November 2009 the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 of theECHR for the second time in the case ofTabesh v Greece.11In this case the applicant, anirregular migrant, was held pending deportation for seven days at the borderguard station ofKordelio, and for three months at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate in 2007. TheECtHR concluded that his conditions in detention at the Police Directorate constituteddegrading treatment.12The ECtHR also held that the period that the applicant was detainedexceeded the time considered reasonable for the purpose of carrying out his deportation andfound a violation of Article 5(1) of the ECHR. In reaching its conclusion, the ECtHR notedthat the applicant was not released until the end of the maximum period provided for in therelevant national legislation and took into account that the Greek authorities did notundertake the necessary formalities with the applicant’s country of origin in order to effecthis deportation during the period that he was in detention.The concerns of Amnesty International are echoed by other key actors in this field.For example, the findings of the ECtHR in the case ofS.D. v Greecepose serious questionsover the compatibility between the current law which allows the continuation of the detentionof asylum-seekers who have applied for asylum while in administrative detention andinternational human rights law.13In July 2009, the Greek Ombudsman called for the re-evaluation of relevant provisions in light of the above judgment.14The findings of the ECtHRin the case ofTabesh v Greeceshould also impel the Greek authorities to re-evaluate thepractice of detaining irregular migrants whose deportation cannot be effected.15

Following his visit to Greece in February 2010, the Council of Europe Commissioner forHuman Rights wrote to the Minister of Citizens’ Protection on 10 March 2010, reiterating hisposition that the detention of migrants should in principle be avoided.16He drew thegovernment’s attention to the judgments outlined above, and called for the adoption offurther measures to guarantee the full conformity of practices concerning the detention ofmigrants with Council of Europe standards and ECtHR case law.At the end of 2009, the Greek government acknowledged a number of problems in theasylum system and in immigration detention facilities, and announced that changes wereneeded in both areas. As a result, it set up a Committee of Experts to draw up proposals forreform of the asylum system. The Committee completed its work in December 2009.17Itsproposals included removing asylum decision-making powers from the remit of the police,and establishing an independent Asylum Service staffed with specialized personnel toexamine asylum applications in the first instance together with an independent Commissionof Appeals with decision-making authority to examine appeals against negative decisions atfirst instance.18In December 2009, the Deputy Minister of Citizens’ Protection established a Working Groupto submit a proposal for the establishment and management of centres on the initialreception and identification (“screening centres”) of migrants and asylum-seekers enteringthe country irregularly. The Working Group presented a summary of its proposals on 14 April2010, and the Ministry of Citizens’ Protection undertook to promptly turn the proposals intolegislation.19The proposed system is meant to act in tandem with reforms in the asylum determinationprocedure. According to the Working Group’s proposals, screening centres should beestablished at the country’s points of entry, including cities with an airport or seaport, wherethere are large concentrations of refugees and migrants. Anyone arriving irregularly into thecountry will be sent to one of these screening centres. According to the proposal, the centreswill allow those in need of international protection, vulnerable groups, such as victims oftorture and trafficking, and unaccompanied children, to be registered and identified, andgiven the opportunity to apply for asylum. Identification of nationality and determination ofage will take place at the centres where these are uncertain, and medical and socialprotection services will be provided.The proposals provide for six general and two special procedures to take place, and stipulatetime limits for such procedures.20Following completion of these procedures, it is proposedthat asylum-seekers, groups in need of special protection and unaccompanied childrenshould be referred to reception facilities outside the screening centres, while irregularmigrants whose deportation is feasible will be transferred to immigration detention centres inthe interior of the country, and detained there pending their deportation. The screeningcentres will be guarded externally by police, and irregular migrants and asylum-seekers willbe allowed to move freely inside the centre. The maximum time limit for detention at thescreening centres will be 15 days, extended only in exceptional circumstances. There is alsoa recommendation to establish a committee to evaluate the operation of each screeningcentre consisting of representatives of local authorities, state local authorities, NGOs orgroups of citizens active in the rights of migrants and refugees.

The Working Group emphasized that the success of the proposals depended on sufficientfunding and the organization of an effective referral system for those leaving the screeningcentres. This would also require the creation of sufficient reception facilities for asylum-seekers, unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups. In May 2010 the Ministry ofCitizens’ Protection and the Ministry of Interior and Decentralization agreed to the immediatecreation of an informal legislative committee to draft the legislative framework for theproposed screening centres.21The draft law is anticipated at the end of July 2010. AmnestyInternational understands that there are plans for a pilot screening centre to start operatingon the island of Samos, prior to the adoption of the relevant legislation, during the summer of2010.22While acknowledging that these proposals are a first step towards reforming the existingsystem, Amnesty International wishes to note that, under international law, the detention ofasylum-seekers and irregular migrants should only ever be used as a last resort, when it isproven to be necessary and proportionate in each individual case, and where other lessrestrictive measures are proven insufficient.23Detention should always be for the shortestpossible time and must not be prolonged or indefinite. Alternative non-custodial measuresshould always be considered before resorting to any restrictions on the right to liberty andsecurity of the person.24Furthermore, the protest by irregular migrants and asylum-seekers in Venna in February 2010over the length and conditions of detention, the hunger strike by irregular migrants held onSamos in April 2010 in protest at the length of their detention, the lack of transparency forprocedures determining their ethnicity and lack of guarantees during deportation, and thepoor conditions repeatedly identified at the Athens’ airport detention area illustrate the needfor immediate changes in the law and practice of immigration-related detention, as well asactual improvements of conditions in places of detention.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThis report is based on a combination of field visits as well as detailed desk research.Amnesty International delegates visited the immigration detention centre on the island ofSamos in June 2009 and the Mersinidiou detention centre on the island of Chios inSeptember and December 2009. Delegates also visited the police station on the island ofPatmos and the borderguard stations of Isaaki, Soufli, Ferres, Tychero, Metaxades and NeoHimonio in Evros in June 2009. Amnesty International also visited the detention area ofAthens airport police station in October 2009 and May 2010.25During those visits, Amnesty International conducted interviews with irregular migrants andasylum-seekers detained there. The organization also interviewed irregular migrants andasylum-seekers who were, or had been, detained at the Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate andThessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate holding facilities for irregular migrants, at variouspolice stations in Athens and at Venna and Fylakio immigration detention centres. Inaddition, its delegates conducted interviews with officials of the Prefecture and localauthorities, prosecutors, coastguard and police authorities, and staff of the detention areasvisited. Amnesty International has also received reports and conducted personal and phoneinterviews with lawyers and groups for the protection of migrants and refugees, the UNHCROffice in Greece, the GCR, the Ecumenical Refugee Programme (ECRP) and the HellenicAction for Human Rights. Statistics and information were also requested and received fromthe Ministry of Citizens’ Protection.

3. DETENTION PRACTICES3.1. DETENTION OF IRREGULAR MIGRANTSInternational and regional human rights standards, such as Article 6 of the EU Charter ofFundamental Rights and Article 5 of the ECHR, guarantee the right to liberty and security ofperson. Article 5(1) ECHR stipulates that “no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in thefollowing cases and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”. One of the reasonsjustifying detention, cited in Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR, is to prevent an individual effectingan unauthorized entry into the country or a person against whom action is being taken in viewof deportation. In addition, Article 15(2) of the EU Returns Directive stipulates thatdetention ordered for the purpose of removal “shall be ordered in writing with reasons beinggiven in fact and in law”.26Article 15(4) of the Directive provides that “… when it appearsthat a reasonable process of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations …detention ceases to be justified and the person concerned shall be released immediately”.In Greece, the legal basis for immigration-related detention can be found in Law 3386/2005on “the entry, residence and social integration of third-country nationals on Greek territory”.This law allows the competent police authorities to order the detention of foreign nationalsfor the purposes of carrying out an administrative deportation order.Article 76(3) of this law stipulates that: “if an alien is considered, on the basis of generalcircumstances, at risk of absconding or dangerous for the public order or avoids or obstructsthe preparation of his departure or the procedure of his deportation” his temporary detentionis ordered by the competent Police Director, until the issuance within three days of theadministrative deportation order. Once the deportation order has been issued, detention maystill continue but cannot exceed a period of six months”.27In June 2009, Law 3772/2009 increased the maximum period that an alien may be held intemporary detention pending deportation, from three to six months, despite internationalconcerns over conditions in the various immigration detention centres and borderguardstations.28Furthermore, the amendments stipulate that the period of detention may beextended for a further period in certain circumstances. The extension of this period may notexceed 12 months, thus detention may last a possible maximum of 18 months.29Themaximum period introduced by the above amendment reflects the detention period stipulatedin the Returns Directive. The Returns Directive has not yet been transposed into Greeklegislation. Amnesty International has already expressed its concern thatthe Directive riskspromoting prolonged detention practices in EU Member States.30Upon arrest at the country’s points of entry, irregular migrants are routinely given a temporarydetention order pending an administrative deportation order being issued. The detentionorder is issued by an administrative authority (local Police Director), it is not approved by ajudge and the judicial review of each case is not automatic and regular (see section 3.5.below).31For the vast majority of those arrested at the Greek-Turkish land and sea points ofentry, the deportation order is accompanied by an order for the continuation of detention.32If a deportation order is not issued within the required three-day period following the

In January 2010, Amnesty International delegates visited two irregular migrants who had been detained in acell at a police station in Athens since October 2009.34One of them had gone on hunger strike to protest abouthis prolonged detention. Both reported problems with their health, lack of exercise, limited access to the toiletand insufficient light in their cells. On 21 January 2010, Amnesty International wrote to the authoritiesrequesting clarification of the grounds and length of detention of the two individuals. In their reply, theauthorities provided this information for only one of the two detainees.35Amongst other issues, they noted that“…efforts continue with regard to determining his nationality and for his deportation”. The authoritiesreferred to their attempts to determine the nationality of the individual concerned by transferring him toconsular authorities of other countries in order to work out whether he was their national. However, the replyreceived shows a three-month gap between the first and the second attempt of the authorities to determinethe nationality of the individual concerned.In February 2010, the detainees told Amnesty International that they had expressed their wish to apply forasylum to the police officers in the police station concerned, but were given documents in Greek to sign. On 3February 2010 Amnesty International requested clarification from the authorities about the content of thesedocuments, and drew attention again to the length and conditions of detention of the individuals concerned. Afew days later, Amnesty International was informed that the two had filed asylum applications and beenreleased, after four months in detention.One issue of concern is the practice by police authorities in some areas of Greece ofdetaining irregular migrants who cannot be removed, whether due to practical or otherobstacles not under their control.36Such obstacles include the refusal of the consularrepresentation of the migrant’s country of origin to cooperate, no means of transportationback to the home country, or the refusal of a third country to allow entry to the migrant. Forexample, prior to the June 2009 amendments Amnesty International was informed thatirregular migrants were detained until the completion of the three-month period despite thefact that their deportation could not be effected. Police authorities in Evros told theorganization that groups of Afghan irregular migrants transferred from Patras during thespring and summer of 2009 were detained for the maximum three months and then releasedbecause their deportation could not be effected since the Readmission Protocol betweenGreece and Turkey was not being wholly implemented.37Upon release from detention, irregular migrants are issued with a police notice to leave thecountry within 30 days, also known as a “white card”. Those migrants whose removal cannotbe effected are at risk of further detention when they fail to leave the territory.38In interviews

with several irregular migrants released from detention, the majority of the “white cards”seen by Amnesty International were in Greek and in some cases in English. Some of theirregular migrants believed that the document was an identity card. Irregular migrantsreleased from Pagani on 26 August 2009 told the organization that they had not had anyexplanation in a language they understood of the content of the document given to themfollowing their release.In addition, during 2009 and 2010, Amnesty International has received several reports thatgroups of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers transferred from immigration detentioncentres on islands, such as Samos and Chios, to immigration centres in other areas of Greecewere given no information about either the grounds for or destination of their transfer.39Amnesty International is opposed to the use of detention for the purposes of migrationcontrol. The authorities should demonstrate in each individual case that such detention isnecessary and proportionate to the objective to be achieved, and that alternatives will not beeffective. Alternative, non-custodial, measures should always be considered before resortingto detention, and detention should always be for the shortest possible time and must not beprolonged or indefinite. In addition, there should be a maximum, and reasonable, durationfor detention provided by law. Once this period has expired, the individual concerned shouldautomatically be released.Amnesty International considers that detention for the purpose of removal is permissible onlywhere action is being taken with due diligence towards removal.40In cases where removalcannot be effected, deportation should be cancelled or suspended, and those detained forthe purpose of removal should be released.

3.2. DETENTION OF ASYLUM-SEEKERSArticle 31(1) of the Refugee Convention requires States Parties “…not to impose penalties,on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territorywhere their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present intheir territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to theauthorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. Article 18(1) of the EUAsylum Procedures Directive provides that “Member States shall not hold a person indetention for the sole reason that he/she is an applicant for asylum”.41Article 13(1) of Presidential Decree (PD) 90/2008 transposing the Asylum ProceduresDirective into Greek legislation, stipulates that: “a national of a third country or a statelessperson who is applying for refugee status cannot be detained for the sole reason of his illegalentry and stay in the country”. However, it also states that asylum-seekers, who havesubmitted their asylum application while in administrative detention, remain in detentionwhile their claim is being assessed. A second ground for the detention of asylum-seekers isstipulated in Article 13(2) which provides that the police authorities can take a decision incooperation with the competent service from the Ministry of Health and Solidarity, ”…torestrict applicants for asylum to appropriate locations when, and for as long as necessary,this is needed in order to ascertain the method of entry, the identity and country of origin ofmass irregular entries of applicants, when this is required on grounds of public interest orpublic order, or when this is considered necessary for the speedy and effective completion ofthe above mentioned procedure”. On the above basis, an asylum-seeker can be restricted up

to a period of 60 days. Article 13(4) also requires that the relevant authorities inform thedetained asylum-seekers of the reasons for and expected duration of their detention.In addition, under amendments introduced by Law 3772/2009 a foreign national can bedeported if he or she has been prosecuted for a crime punishable by a minimum of threemonths’ imprisonment. Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants legally residing in the countryare not excluded from the scope of the amendment and thus can be issued with anadministrative deportation order and subsequently detained on such ground.Asylum-seekers arrested at the country’s points of entry are treated in a similar fashion toirregular migrants. After being held for three days in detention, they are issued with anadministrative deportation order. For the vast majority, the deportation order is accompaniedby an order for the continuation of detention (see section 3.1 above). It appears that very fewof the asylum-seekers arrested at the country’s points of entry apply for asylum there.42TheGCR has noted of certain cases in which asylum-seekers had first been held on the basis ofadministrative detention for the maximum detention period until July 2009 (three months)and then for 60 days on the basis of 13 (2) of PD 90/2008 and observed that this practicemisinterpreted the ratio of the latter provision.43In some instances, the nationality of asylum-seekers, and whether or not their country oforigin was considered safe were among the determining criteria influencing the decision ofthe authorities to detain them during the determination of their asylum claim.44Policeauthorities in Samos told Amnesty International in June 2009 that if the asylum-seeker’scountry of origin was one where returns can take place, such as Iraq, the deportation orderwas accompanied with an order to continue the detention of the individual concerned.Even after they have registered their asylum claim with the competent authorities, asylum-seekers can remain in detention, unless they are able to successfully challenge theirdetention before the competent administrative tribunal.45Following the extension of themaximum period of detention to six months, detained asylum-seekers may continue to remainin detention following the rejection of their asylum application at first instance.In effect, asylum-seekers can be detained for lengthy periods in poor conditions, in facilitiesnot designed for long-term detention. Delays in the formation of Advisory RefugeeCommittees to examine asylum applications at first instance, as provided for in June 2009,also contributed to the prolonged detention of many asylum-seekers.

In January 2010, Amnesty International was informed about three Turkish asylum-seekers of Kurdish originwho had been arrested in early September 2009, and were still detained in the holding facility of the Aliens’Police Directorate in Thessaloniki. According to their lawyer, the three had asked for asylum immediately afterbeing arrested and their application was forwarded to the Asylum Department in Thessaloniki within a fewdays of their detention. Their claim was examined over four months later, at the end of January 2010. The threeasylum-seekers were released in the first week of February 2010, a few days after the decision on their asylumapplication had been issued. The decision granted the three asylum-seekers humanitarian protection statusfor a period of two years.The case below concerns six Iranian asylum-seekers who were transferred along with 10Afghan irregular migrants from the island of Samos to Athens on 14 January 2010 with a

The six Iranian asylum-seekers had arrived irregularly on the island of Samos some time in November 2009.They were apprehended by local police, who then accused them of using false documents to enter the country,and subsequently issued deportation orders against them. They were initially detained at Vathi police stationand after that at Samos immigration detention centre until their transfer to Athens. Their asylum applications,lodged on 26 November 2009 with the assistance of a lawyer employed by the local Prefecture, were rejectedon 9 January 2010. The rejection decisions were reportedly handed to them a day prior to their transfer toAthens, and were in Greek and were not explained to them. Amnesty International interviewed two of the sixasylum-seekers. They spoke about the inadequate interpretation during their asylum interviews, theirconditions in detention, and the lack of clear and sufficient information regarding the purpose of their transferto Athens and of their right to appeal against the first instance decision.One of them told Amnesty International: “...The day that we were transferred to Athens, a policewoman told usin English in the morning and in the evening another officer (he did not wear a uniform) told us in Farsi thatwe were being transferred to Athens in order to be released and we would have a two-month deadline inAthens to appeal against the decision rejecting our asylum application (they didn’t mention anything aboutdeportation). At 6pm, before serving dinner, they took us to a police station for the transfer. We signed paperswritten only in Greek that we could not understand."Following their transfer to Athens, the six Iranian asylum-seekers were detained at Elliniko detention centre forirregular migrants pending deportation. The two asylum-seekers told Amnesty International that their blanketsand mattresses were dirty, hot water was very limited and, because of overcrowding, there were not enoughbeds for everyone and they slept on the floor. The asylum-seekers managed to see a volunteer lawyer whilethey were detained there. Their case received wide publicity. They were released from detention on 21 January2010. The deportation orders issued against them were suspended for a period of 30 days. The police notice, or“white card”, -- issued to them upon their release -- was in Greek, a language that none of the asylum-seekers could understand.47Amnesty International’s research between September 2008 and February 2009 indicatedthat the vast majority of Dublin II returnees interviewed were usually detained for a few dayson arrival at Athens airport.48In May 2010, the police authorities said that Dublin IIreturnees were detained at the airport for between one and two days.Dublin II returnees who are failed asylum-seekers, and for whom a negative decision hasbecome final, are detained for longer for the purposes of deportation.

During the May 2010 visit to the Athens airport detention area, Amnesty International delegates met with X, anIraqi national. X. was the only Dublin II returnee held in the facility at the time of the visit. X. was not detainedin the area used for Dublin II returnees and other asylum-seekers but with irregular migrants convicted forattempting to leave the country with false documents. He had already been detained at the facility for twodays at the time of the organization’s visit. According to the authorities, the decision rejecting his asylumapplication at first instance had become final and following his return to Greece he was detained for thepurpose of deportation.49X. did not understand why he had been detained and was unable to contact hisrelatives. The police authorities informed Amnesty International that X. was released few days after theorganization’s visit and that he did not submit a new asylum application during his detention.

Interviews with people who have been detained, and reports from other NGOs, indicate thatmany individuals in need of international protection are discouraged from applying for asylumout of fear of being detained for longer. In other cases individuals withdraw their asylumapplications having suffered prolonged detention in poor conditions.50Lawyers working at the country’s points of entry also told Amnesty International that the lackof reception centres in these areas further discouraged people from applying for asylum inthat location, and many prefered to lodge an application in Athens where other members oftheir communities lived. Other asylum-seekers said they preferred not to apply for asylum inGreece, and decided to move on following their release, in order to apply for asylum inanother European country.In his 2009 Annual Report, the Greek Ombudsman concluded on the basis of on-siteinvestigations that almost no foreign national applied for asylum at the country’s points ofentry without being already in detention.51Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted that in caseswhere deportation could not be effected, it was observed that asylum-seekers were beingdetained for a longer time (up to the maximum permitted time). On the other hand,individuals who did not apply for asylum were released in a short period of time.

Asylum-seekers in Mersinidiou detention centre on the island of Chios told Amnesty International delegatesduring their visit in September 2009 of their despair at the prolonged time they had spent in detention. Theybelieved that their asylum applications had increased the length of their detention. Individuals, who had notapplied for asylum, told the delegates that one of their reasons for not filing an application was that they didnot wish to stay for a longer period in detention at the centre. Detained asylum-seekers said that the detentionperiod varied from two to three months.52Amnesty International also received reports from the Ecumenical Refugee Programme (ECRP), a local NGO,that, between August and the end of September 2009, 19 asylum-seekers who were detained in Paganidetention facility on the island of Lesvos decided to withdraw their asylum applications, having beendiscouraged by the severe overcrowding, poor detention conditions and the possibility of lengthy detention atthe centre.53The detention of asylum-seekers in the centre during that period was reported to have beenprolonged as a result of the changes in the asylum determination procedure introduced in June 2009. Theconsideration of claims was delayed pending the establishment of the new Advisory Refugee Committees toexamine their applications. Other factors prolonging detention periods were the extension of the maximumperiod of administrative detention and the reported lack of interpreters for the interviews before the AdvisoryRefugee Committee.54One of the few asylum-seekers who decided not to withdraw his application was reportedly detained for morethan three months in the centre as well as a further nine days following his interview with the competentAdvisory Refugee Committee.The ECRP also informed Amnesty International of the case of K., an asylum-seeker from Côte d’Ivoire, who wasreportedly arrested on 19 June 2009 and lodged his asylum application a few days later. K. was released twodays after the three-month period required by the previous legal regime, despite the fact that the authoritieshad not issued a detention order to justify his detention for the three months.55Amnesty International is opposed to the detention of refugees and asylum-seekers and hasregularly reiterated its position that the Greek authorities should only ever detain asylum-

seekers as a measure of last resort, after justifying in each individual case that it is anecessary and proportionate measure that conforms with international law.Amnesty International is also concerned about the incompatibility of amended Article 76(1)of Law 3386/2005 with international human rights and refugee law and with the GreekConstitution, since it allows for the deportation of recognized refugees and asylum-seekersand irregular migrants solely on the grounds that they have been prosecuted for a crimepunishable by as little as three months imprisonment. Amnesty International believes thatthe amended provision is contrary to Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention which makesan exception to thenon-refoulementprohibition only in circumstances in which “there arereasonable grounds for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of the country inwhich he is, or who having been convicted by a final judgment of a particular serious crime,constitutes a danger to the community of that country”. A crime which attracts a three-monthimprisonment cannot be considered a particularly serious crime. Furthermore, deportation onthe basis that someone has been prosecuted but not yet convicted for a crime is contrary tothe principle of the “presumption of innocence”, which is enshrined in the GreekConstitution and international human rights treaties, such as Article 6(2) of the ECHR, whichguarantees the right to fair trial.56

3.3. CRIMINALIZATION OF IRREGULAR MIGRATIONVarious UN bodies, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, have opposed thetreatment of irregular migration, including entry, exit or stay, as a criminal offence.57In itsrecent report, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has noted that “migrants in anirregular situation have not committed any crime. The criminalization of irregular migrationexceeds the legitimate interests of States in protecting its territories and regulating irregularmigration flows”.58UN human rights experts have repeatedly stressed that states must not criminalize irregularentry. They have criticized the use and introduction of criminal penalties, includingassociated detention, for failure to comply with immigration regulations and the use ofimmigration status as a basis for a criminal conviction or as an exacerbating circumstance forany offence, resulting in discriminatory penalties. Criminalization of irregular migration isseen as inconsistent with human rights protection. Such measures promote xenophobicattitudes, and undermine access to asylum.Legislation in Greece allows for criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, for irregularentry into and exit out of the country. Article 83 of Law 3386/2005 stipulates that third-country nationals can be sentenced with imprisonment for at least three months and asubstantial fine (of at least €1,500) for irregular entry or exit.59According to Article 83(2),the Public Prosecutor of the Magistrates Court, with approval from the Public Prosecutor forthe Court of Appeal, may refrain from initiating criminal proceedings for such acts, in whichcase he or she shall immediately notify the police or port authority of this decision, so thelatter may immediately and forcibly remove the third-country national to the country of originor descent. If they cannot be removed immediately, the relevant authority shall refer them tothe competent administrative authority for deportation on the basis of Article 76 of the sameLaw.60

The practice of prosecutorial authorities charging irregular migrants and asylum-seekers withirregular entry is not consistent. On Samos, authorities are reported to refrain, in most cases,from bringing criminal charges for irregular entry into the country, except when the individualis accused of trafficking. Prosecutorial authorities in Alexandroupoli (Evros) told AmnestyInternational that they also refrain from initiating criminal charges against migrants arrestedfor irregular entry, except when the individuals arrested are suspected traffickers or inpossession of false documents.61In addition, public prosecutors in Alexandroupoli spoke ofdifficulties in securing a qualified interpreter at the time that irregular migrants and asylum-seekers are brought before them. On the other hand, the prosecutorial authorities inOrestiada (Evros) told Amnesty International that they made such decisions on a case by casebasis.62If charges are not brought, foreign nationals apprehended for irregular entry areissued with an administrative deportation order usually accompanied by an order for thecontinuation of detention.Amnesty International has been informed of cases where irregular migrants and asylum-seekers (including families with small children), convicted for use of false documents and/orirregular exit out of the country, remained in police stations and/or prison facilities for manymonths following the court order for deportation.

A family of Hazara asylum-seekers from Afghanistan (father, mother, three-year old daughter and the mother’sbrother) had been arrested for attempting to leave the country with false documents in December 2008. Thecriminal court gave the adults a suspended six-month sentence, a €3,000 fine, and ordered their judicialdeportation. The family was reported to have been tried without the presence of a lawyer or an interpreter. Theywere detained together for four months in a borderguard station in the north of Greece under reportedly poorconditions, and were subsequently separated. The mother and her daughter were transferred to a women’sprison facility in Thiva and the two men to Korydallos prison. The family did not manage to apply for asylumuntil their transfer from the borderguard station to the prison facilities. The mother is reported to have onlylearnt the grounds of her detention after her transfer.In August 2009, the Thiva Misdemeanours Court rejected the mother’s objections against the judicialdeportation order, despite the fact that her deportation could not be effected because of her status as anasylum-seeker and of the fact that she did not have a passport.63The mother and daughter remained indetention for 15 months (they were released in March 2010) solely for the purpose of effecting the mother’sjudicial deportation.64During Amnesty International’s visit to Athens airport detention area in May 2010, the policeauthorities said that irregular migrants and asylum-seekers arrested at the airport forattempting to leave the country with false documents usually received a suspended sentencefor use of false documents and were ordered to pay judicial expenses (€87). This wasconverted to an eight-day sentence, served in the airport detention facility, if they wereunable to pay. The authorities said that, following completion of that period, the individualsconcerned remain in detention until the Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate had carried out thenecessary steps for effecting administrative deportation procedures.While the police authorities claimed that the time of imprisonment and subsequentadministrative detention in these circumstances did not exceed two weeks, some detaineestold Amnesty International that they had been detained for a month – and in one case 55days.

3.4. EFFECTIVENESS OF REMEDIES CHALLENGING DETENTIONDespite the fact that the current legislative framework provides mechanisms for challengingadministrative detention, Amnesty International is concerned about their effectiveness andaccessibility.Article 5(4) ECHR provides that “everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detentionshall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall bedecided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful”. Article 18(2) of the Asylum Procedures Directive states: “where an applicant for asylum is held indetention, Member States shall ensure that there is a possibility of a speedy judicialreview”.65Article 15(2) of the Returns Directive stipulates that: “when detention has beenordered by administrative authorities, Member States shall: (a) either provide for a speedyjudicial review of the lawfulness of detention to be decided as speedily as possible from thebeginning of detention; (b) or grant the third-country national concerned the right to takeproceedings by means of which the lawfulness of detention shall be subject to speedyjudicial review to be decided as speedily as possible...In such a case Member States shallimmediately inform the third-country national concerned about the possibility of taking suchproceedings.” Furthermore Article 15(3) states that: “In every case, detention shall bereviewed at reasonable intervals of time either on application by the third-country nationalconcerned or ex officio.”International human rights standards also guarantee the right to be informed of the reasonsfor detention.66Similarly, the Returns Directive provides that: “Detention shall be ordered inwriting with reasons being given in fact and in law.”67Article 47 of the EU Charter ofFundamental Rights further stipulates that: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteedby the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal incompliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair andpublic hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previouslyestablished by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended andrepresented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so faras such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”National legislation provides that irregular migrants who are in administrative detention, orasylum-seekers who are in administrative detention or “confined in appropriate places”, havethe right to challenge the decision ordering their detention by submitting objections against itto the First Instance Administrative Court in the region of their detention.68Article 76(3) of Law 3386/2005 stipulates that a foreign national against whom anadministrative deportation order is issued must be informed in a language they understand of

the grounds for their detention and that communication with their lawyer should be madeeasy. A Ministerial Decision of 27 July 2009 also stipulates that an information leafletregarding deportation procedures and pertinent rights is provided to the foreign nationalagainst whom a deportation order has been issued.69The Ministerial Decision also stated thatauthorities should prepare a document to be signed by the foreign national as proof that theyhad received the information leaflet. Article 13(4)(f) of the Ministerial Decision stipulatesthat the national authorities responsible for receiving and examining asylum applicationsshall take steps to inform detained asylum-seekers of the grounds for and duration of theirdetention.Although deportation procedures are suspended until completion of the administrative stageof the determination of an asylum application, a person who applies for asylum while indetention must challenge the detention before the competent administrative tribunal to bereleased, even though their deportation has been suspended.In addition, irregular migrants who decide to appeal against the deportation order to theMinister of Public Order (currently the Minister of Citizens’ Protection), or to the bodyauthorized by the Minister as stipulated by Article 77 of Law 3396/2009, cannot challengethe detention order in the same appeal. Instead, they need to raise separate objections totheir detention before an administrative tribunal.70However, if the appeal against thedeportation order is accepted, detention is also lifted. If the appeal against the deportationdecision is rejected, a detainee can file an application to annul the deportation order alongwith an application to suspend the deportation order. InS.D. v. Greece,the ECtHR has notedthat the introduction of an application to annul along with an application to suspend thedeportation order does not lift detention.71Amnesty International notes that navigating the heavily bureaucratic and complicated legalsystem of administrative detention in Greece is not a realistic expectation for detainedirregular migrants and asylum-seekers especially when there is no access to free legalassistance and lack of adequate interpretation during the court hearing. All the above aresevere obstacles in accessing justice and being able to challenge detention effectively.InS.D. v Greece,the ECtHR concluded that Greek legislation did not permit a direct reviewof the lawfulness of the detention of a foreign national being held for the purpose ofdeportation.72The ECtHR held that the applicant had been unable to have the lawfulness ofhis detention reviewed by Greek courts and found a violation of Article 5 (4) ECHR.73Lawyers representing asylum-seekers in applications against detention noted cases wherecourts had rejected objections despite the applicants having submitted documentation toshow that they were not at risk of absconding. In a recent case, the administrative tribunal ofThessaloniki is reported to have rejected objections to the detention of three asylum-seekers,even though they had provided an affidavit from the director of the asylum-seekers receptioncentre in Lavrio confirming that accommodation would be provided to them upon theirrelease.74In addition, lawyers told Amnesty International that neither Law 3386/2005 nor any otherpiece of national legislation provides for a legal remedy to which a detained migrant orasylum-seeker can resort in order to complain about conditions of detention.75The

mechanism for objecting to a decision to detain before an administrative tribunal has onlybeen considered as an indirect remedy against detention conditions, since the administrativetribunal cannot review detention conditions as a ground for release.76Another cause for concern is the failure of police authorities to explain the grounds for andlength of detention to those detained in a language they understand. Several detainedirregular migrants and asylum-seekers told Amnesty International about the lack of thisinformation and/or that the authorities gave them documents to sign in Greek which they didnot understand.In addition, the lodging of objections against administrative detention is not funded by alegal aid scheme, and thus inaccessible to those without financial means.77AmnestyInternational has also spoken to lawyers who were employed at the various immigrationdetention centres who told the organization that the legal assistance they were able toprovide was limited to asylum applications.Amnesty International believes that each decision to detain should be automatically andregularly reviewed as to its lawfulness, necessity and proportionality by a court or similarcompetent independent and impartial body, accompanied by the adequate provision of legalaid. The organization further believes that detainees should have the right to be informed ofthe reason for their detention in writing, in a language they understand, and that statesshould ensure that free legal assistance is available to enable individuals to challengedetention.Amnesty International believes that the government must amend its legislation in order that itcomply with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to ensure that thelawfulness of the decision to detain can be challenged in the courts. Amnesty Internationalbelieves that the government must also introduce into Greek legislation an effective remedychallenging conditions of detention.

Article 8(1) of PD 90/2008 establishes the right of asylum-seekers to be informed, in alanguage they understand, about the procedure that is followed and of their rights andobligations; it also provides for the right to the services of a free interpreter, so they canpresent their case to the authorities that receive and examine asylum applications, and forthe conduct of the asylum interview at all stages, if communication cannot be securedwithout an interpreter’s presence. Article 13(4)(e) of PD 90/2008 requires the nationalauthorities that receive and examine asylum applications to ensure that asylum-seekers whoare in detention have the right to be represented by legal counsel.National legislation provides for the granting of legal aid only with regard to an application toannul a negative decision to the Council of State.81Fees charged by private lawyers for legalassistance to asylum-seekers are high, making legal advice inaccessible for those withoutfinancial means. Neither does national legislation allow legal aid for challenges toadministrative deportation and detention (see section 3.4).Detained asylum-seekers who have no financial means rely on legal advice provided by asmall number of NGOs or ad-hoc programmes, such as the one which operated in 2008-2009, at selected border locations, through EU funding (Aegeas). The Aegeas programmeused to provide, via involved Prefectures, legal assistance to those wishing to seek asylum, aswell as interpretation and social care to those detained in the immigration detention centreson the islands of Chios, Lesvos, Samos and the Evros region; it ceased its operation in someimmigration detention centres (Fylakio) in the summer of 2009 and in others (Samos, Lesvos(Pagani) and Chios (Mersinidiou)) in the autumn of 2009.82During Amnesty International’svisit to Mersinidiou in December 2009, access to free legal advice on asylum was onlypossible when a lawyer from the local Bar Association visited the centre once or twice aweek.83Furthermore, since October 2009, there was also no interpreter employed at thecentre. Until April 2010, a lawyer employed by the local Prefecture provided advice onasylum at the Samos immigration detention centre. However, his contract is reported to havefinished at the end of April 2010. In addition, there have been reportedly no interpreters atthe centre since August 2009.Even when the programme was in operation in the various immigration detention centres, theability of the lawyers employed by Aegeas or by the local prefecture to cover the needs ofthose seeking asylum was impeded by other difficulties such as a lack of a sufficient numberof interpreters, or interpreters only being available in one language, together with the factthat only one lawyer was generally employed to cover the needs of a large number ofdetainees.The programme run by the NGO AITIMA, which provided legal advice and social support toDublin II returnees arriving at Athens airport from February 2010, finished in April 2010.During Amnesty International’s second visit to Athens airport in May 2010, the policeauthorities told delegates that there was no interpreter at the detention facility. Furthermore,NGOs providing legal assistance to asylum-seekers, including those in detention, toldAmnesty International of serious financial difficulties as a result of delays by the authoritiesin processing the allocation of funds under the European Refugee Fund (ERF). Consequently,there has been a significant loss of personnel such as lawyers and interpreters.84Reports have also been received about the hurdles created by police authorities to lawyers

providing legal assistance to detainees. Thosedetained at the Ferres borderguard station toldthe organization that the police officers in charge ignored their pleas to be given access to alawyer. Amnesty International delegates requested the list of local lawyers from the policeofficers in charge and showed it to the detainees.In addition, lawyers offering pro bono assistance spoke of barriers to their access to asylum-seekers and irregular migrants who were detained in various borderguard stations in Evros,whom they were authorized to represent or tried to assist, even when they gave their client’sname to the police officers in charge. Those barriers included refusal to allow access to thedetainee unless permission was received from the central police directorate of the Prefecture,and the borderguards’ refusal to confirm whether an individual was detained in the centre.85A representative of the local Bar Association in Chios, who visits the Mersinidiou centre, saidshe faced difficulties because the local police authorities only gave her permission to attendthe centre during morning hours, which is when lawyers need to be in court.86There are also concerns about the lack of, or outdated, information materials about asylumdetermination and deportation procedures in several of the detention areas visited. Policeauthorities in Patmos, who were interviewed by Amnesty International in June 2009, were notaware that an information leaflet on asylum determination procedures was available in fivelanguages. Some of the detainees in Ferres said they had not seen the government’s leafletson asylum determination procedures and deportation procedures. At Mersinidiou theinformation leaflet was available only in the offices of the police but not in the dormitoriesand it did not include the legislative amendments of June 2009. Some of the detainees atthe centre said that they had seen the leaflet, some that they had not. Furthermore, many ofthe detained asylum-seekers interviewed in September 2009 did not know about their rightto appeal against a negative decision on their asylum application or what would happen tothem if their asylum applications were rejected. During the May 2010 visit to Athens airportdetention facility, the police authorities told the Amnesty International that there was only aleaflet on deportation procedures in five languages but no leaflet on asylum determinationprocedures in the facility.

3.5.2. COMMUNICATION WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLDAccording to international human rights principles, irregular migrants and asylum-seekerswho are detained should have the right to be visited by members of their family and foradequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world.87The UNHCR RevisedGuidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers(1999) state that asylum-seekers in detention should be entitled, amongst other things, tocontact with the local UNHCR Office and national refugee bodies and other agencies, andthe opportunity to make regular contact with and receive visits from friends and relatives,religious, social and other counsel.88The EU Returns Directive requires Member States toallow third-country nationals in detention to contact legal representatives, family membersand competent consular authorities.89Article 81 (1) of PD 90/2008 guarantees asylum-seekers the right not to be hindered in theircontact with UNHCR or any other organizations which cooperate with UNHCR. Article 67(4)of PD 141/1991 stipulates that “…the police must facilitate telephone contact between thedetainees and their families in order to inform them, if they so wish, of the place and reasonsof their detention.”90

The chance for irregular migrants and asylum-seekers to contact their families and lawyers inorder to receive appropriate assistance is hampered by the availability of card phones atdetention areas and the locations where phones are situated. Even if public phones areaccessible, irregular migrants and asylum-seekers with no financial means rely on thepersonnel of the detention centres to provide them with phonecards. According to testimoniesreceived, there is no consistency in the authorities providing cards, and even when they do,the card has often been partially used. The ability of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers tocontact the outside world is further restricted by the authorities’ practice of removing theirmobile phones when they arrive at the centres or borderguard stations.In June 2009, in Samos immigration detention centre, there were two card phones inside thecentre, situated in the main yard. However, the Amnesty International delegates receivedcredible reports that the phones did not work and had not been repaired for at least a month.In the borderguard station of Ferres, the single card phone had not been working for severaldays when the organization visited in June 2009, and detainees had had their mobile phonesremoved. Furthermore, the card phone was situated in a small area outside the cells and wasnot accessible without asking permission from the officers in charge. In the borderguardstation of Soufli, a landline phone was situated in a small space outside the area where thecells were situated.At Athens airport, a card phone is situated outside the first and second sectors of thedetention facility, and detainees held in these sectors only have access to it with permissionfrom the police. During Amnesty International’s May 2010 visit, detainees in the two sectorssaid that their mobiles had been confiscated by the police, and since they did not havemoney to buy telephone cards they were unable to contact their families. A card phone issituated in the corridor outside the cells of the third sector of the facility but detaineesreported that they were rarely allowed outside the sector in order to use the card phones. As aresult of the authorities confiscating the detainees’ possessions, some reported that they wereunable to contact their relatives because they could not remember their phone numbers anddid not have access to their address books or to their mobile phones.Local committees working for the rights of refugees on Chios, Samos and Crete, who canprovide information and support to those detained, have been refused access to the detentioncentres and police stations in Chios and Crete, or have subsequently been provided with oralpermission from the authorities to visit the local detention centre, which can be withdrawn atany time (Samos). The local committee working for the rights of refugees on Lesvos wasrefused access to the Pagani detention centre (which closed temporarily in November 2009).In April 2010 Amnesty International was informed that the police had denied permission forthe local refugee support group on Samos to visit the centre. Prior to that, the group hadbeen allowed access to the centre for several years, and the group’s volunteers had providedthe detainees there with advice, social care and Greek lessons. In June 2010 AmnestyInternational was informed that the authorities had reinstated the group’s access to thecentre.In February 2010, following the Greek government’s announcement about the establishmentof screening centres at the country’s various points of entry, national refugee support groupsand NGOs, including the Greek section of Amnesty International, signed a joint statement

calling for the authorities to take steps in order to allow from the beginning access to theplanned screening centres for NGOs and groups assisting migrants and refugees.Amnesty International believes that states should ensure that, if detention or any otherlimitation of freedom takes place, asylum-seekers and irregular migrants are granted accessto legal counsel, free legal assistance, interpreters, refugee and migrant assistingorganizations, members of their families, and religious and social assistance. AmnestyInternational believes that states should ensure that, while in detention, asylum-seekers andirregular migrants should be able to communicate freely and in full confidentiality withpeople who visit the places of detention and be given adequate opportunity to communicatewith the outside world, subject to reasonable conditions to ensure security and good order insuch places.

3.6.1. IRREGULARITIES DURING DETENTIONConcerns have been raised over reports of police authorities on the island of Samos recordingarrested irregular migrants and possible asylum-seekers as having a different nationality fromthat declared by the migrants and asylum-seekers themselves, and not providing them withan effective opportunity to challenge these records. During a hunger strike that took place atthe Samos immigration detention centre in April 2010, among other issues, the migrantsraised concerns about the procedures that had been followed regarding the registration oftheir nationality.91The detainees also reported that they had been asked to sign papers in alanguage they did not understand. Amnesty International understands that the Greek policeon the island of Samos are assisted in screening the nationality of apprehended irregularmigrants and asylum-seekers by experts deployed by EU Member States in the framework ofFrontex-coordinated joint operations.92On the basis of interviews conducted with three individuals from a group of 10 Afghanirregular migrants and six Iranian asylum-seekers transferred from Samos to Athens on 14January 2010, and from other reports received, Amnesty International is concerned that atleast one of the 10 Afghans was registered as Iranian when his actual nationality wasAfghan.93

A. told Amnesty International that on 12 January 2010, police transferred him along with nine other Afghanindividuals from Samos immigration detention centre to the police station in the town of Vathi. A. said that,after two days in detention at Vathi police station, an Afghan interpreter appeared and gave each of them adocument in Greek to sign, which he said was required for them to be released. The interpreter also providedthem with a second document in Greek, which they also signed without understanding its content.On 14 January, the 10 irregular migrants along with six asylum-seekers were transferred by boat to Athens.Upon arrival there, the two groups were separated. The six asylum-seekers were detained at Elliniko holdingfacility for irregular migrants (Athens) while the 10 Afghan irregular migrants were detained at Omonoiapolice station (Athens). A. told Amnesty International that no police officer at the station informed them of thegrounds for their detention, and that they had no phonecards or money to buy any, nor knowledge of who tocall for assistance. A. said that the cells at the station were dirty, and that they felt cold because they wereeach given only one thin blanket.A. told Amnesty International that, after four days at Omonoia police station, his group was transferred by busto the holding facility of Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate where they stayed for a night. The next day thegroup was transferred to the Venna immigration detention centre.After a day at Venna, the police authorities allegedly transferred them to the Turkish border and handed A. andthe other nine Afghan migrants to the Turkish authorities under the Readmission Protocol with Turkey. A. toldAmnesty International that they were asked by the Turkish authorities at the border whether they wereAfghans; when they said that they were Afghans, the authorities returned them to the Greek border the sameday. The Greek border authorities again transferred them to Venna immigration detention for irregularmigrants where, according to A. they remained for 21 more days. A. said that the group was released after oneof them suffered a suspected heart attack. The official notice given to them, issued in Greek, requested thatthey leave the country within 30 days.In addition, during 2009 and 2010, Amnesty International has received several reports thatgroups of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers transferred from immigration detentioncentres on the islands, such as Samos and Chios, to other areas of Greece were given noinformation about either the grounds for or destination of their transfer.95

Article 4(1) of PD 90/2008, stipulates that “every foreign national or stateless person has theright to submit an asylum application. The competent authorities to receive and examine anapplication shall ensure that each adult is able to exercise the right to request asylum oncondition that he/she appears before the said authorities”. Article 4(5) stipulates that “theCentral authority shall ensure that the authorities likely to be addressed by asylum applicantsare to be informed regarding… the right of the applicant to ask these authorities to forwardthe application to the competent authority”.Amnesty International has received reports of the police authorities in detention areas at thecountry’s points of entry delaying or refusing to receive asylum applications as well reports ofpolice refusing to forward asylum applications to the competent authorities. In July 2009, 18Kurdish asylum-seekers of Turkish nationality, including four unaccompanied minors, wereforcibly returned to the Turkish authorities. Their deportation followed the refusal of policeofficers responsible for their detention in Chania, Crete, to accept the oral request of the fourminors to file an asylum application and to forward the 14 adults’ asylum applications, whichhad been filed in the presence of lawyers, to the competent authorities.Amnesty International has also been told by some asylum-seekers that when they expressedthe wish to apply for asylum while in detention, the police authorities gave them documentsin Greek to sign, which they did not understand. Amnesty International has also beeninformed by one of the lawyers who worked in one of the immigration detention centres, ofimpediments created by police authorities, such as not allowing detained asylum-seekersenough time to file their asylum applications prior to their transfer to Athens.Amnesty International believes that access to a fair and effective refugee statusdetermination procedure should be granted to all asylum-seekers and individuals seekinginternational protection under a member state’s jurisdiction. This applies to a state within itsterritory, at its borders and can also apply extra-territorially. This includes ensuring thatimmigration officials present all asylum applications to the competent central authority.

4. DETENTION OF UNACCOMPANIEDCHILDRENUnaccompanied asylum-seeking and migrant children in Greece face a series of obstacles torealizing and protecting their rights. Inadequate procedures for determining their age,detention alongside adults, lengthy detention in conditions which sometimes amount toinhuman or degrading treatment, insufficient places in special reception centres, deportationof unaccompanied migrant children and a problematic guardianship system are among theissues of concern that Amnesty International has raised on the basis of research conductedand reports received over the past year.Amnesty International believes that there should be a prohibition on the detention ofunaccompanied children provided by law. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC),which is the body monitoring state compliance with obligations stemming from the UNConvention on the Rights of the Child, explicitly states that in the best interests of the child“unaccompanied or separated children should not, as a general rule, be detained. Detentioncannot be justified solely on the basis of the child being unaccompanied or separated, or ontheir migratory or residence status, or lack thereof”. The CRC calls on States Parties to makeall efforts, including acceleration of relevant processes, to allow for the immediate release ofunaccompanied or separated children from detention and their placement in other forms ofappropriate accommodation.97The EU Reception Conditions Directive sets out special provisions for unaccompaniedasylum-seeking minors. In particular, it requires Member States to ensure legal guardianshipor representation by an appropriate organization. Furthermore, Article 20(1) of the Children’sConvention obliges Greece as a state party to provide “special protection and assistance” tochildren who are not in their family environment. In the case of a child who may be seekingasylum, Article 22 requires Greece to take "all appropriate measures to ensure that a childwho is seeking refugee status … whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or herparents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance inthe enjoyment of applicable rights."Greek legislation regarding the administrative deportation of foreign nationals does notprotect unaccompanied children from being detained pending deportation. Regardingasylum-seeking children, Article 13(4) of PD 90/2008 stipulates that the competentauthorities should avoid the detention or “confinement” of children, especially those who areunaccompanied or have been separated from their families. In practice, this requirement isnot followed.In August 2009, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)expressed concern about reported cases of ill-treatment of asylum-seekers and illegalimmigrants, including unaccompanied children, and recommended that the Greek

4.1. PROLONGED DETENTIONUnaccompanied asylum-seeking and migrant children who are apprehended at the country’spoints of entry are usually detained following their arrest for irregular entry. Where adeportation order is issued, detention continues until a legal guardian is appointed and aplace found in a special reception centre for unaccompanied children.100Police authoritiesinterviewed by Amnesty International shared a perception that placing unaccompaniedchildren under administrative detention was the only way to keep them safe from traffickingand exploitation and fulfil the authorities’ legal obligations until a place could be found in aspecial reception centre.The limited number of centres for unaccompanied children, and of places available in thesecentres, is an important factor contributing to the prolonged periods of detention ofunaccompanied children in borderguard stations and immigration detention centres.101Although the Greek authorities have made some effort to create more accommodation forunaccompanied children, the number of existing centres does not match current needs.The lack of available places in Ayiassos special reception centre for unaccompanied childrenon Lesvos and in other similar centres around Greece was reported to be one of the maingrounds for the prolonged detention in poor conditions of a large number of unaccompaniedchildren at the Pagani immigration detention centre in the summer of 2009. In August2009, about 150 of the children went on hunger strike to protest about the length and poorconditions of detention. More than 850 people, including 200 unaccompanied children, 150women and 50 small children, were kept in overcrowded and insanitary conditions. Followinga visit from UNHCR and the Ombudsman for the Rights of the Child, the authorities arereported to have released 570 individuals, mainly families with children and unaccompaniedchildren.102The scope, detail and implementation of the relevant domestic legislation regarding theguardianship of migrant and asylum-seeking unaccompanied children has also contributed todelays in transferring unaccompanied children to special centres.103The regulations on guardianship of unaccompanied children who are asylum-seekers areincluded in PD 220/2007 transposing the EU Reception Conditions Directive into nationallegislation.104Article 19 (1) of the PD 220/2007 provides that “the competent authorities shall take theappropriate measures to ensure the minor’s necessary representation. To this purpose, theyshall inform the Public Prosecutor for Minors or in the absence of the latter, the territoriallycompetent First Instance Public Prosecutor should inform the Prosecutor for Children or, inareas where such an authority does not exist, the Prosecutor of First Instance Courts, whoshall act as a provisional guardian and shall take the necessary steps in view of theappointment of a guardian for the minor.” While the above provision refers only tounaccompanied children who are asylum-seekers, a Ministry of Interior Circular of 23

February 2008 extended it to unaccompanied children who have not applied for asylum.In addition, Article 19 (2) of PD 220/2007 stipulates that the authorities shall ensureimmediately that the accommodation needs for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arecovered by placing them with a foster family, adult relatives or an accommodation centre thathas special provision for minors.105According to a 2008 study commissioned by UNHCR, some public prosecutors acting astemporary guardians have interpreted their role as limited solely to the appointment ofpermanent guardians, claiming that it was impossible to exercise their duties effectivelybecause of their workload.106Such limited interpretation of the legal guardian’s mandate canlead to unaccompanied minors being unable to exercise their legal rights such as challengingthe deportation and detention orders issued against them.107The following example illustrates how difficulties in appointing permanent guardians and alack of available spaces in special reception centres contributes to the prolonged detention ofunaccompanied children.

Amnesty International delegates who visited the immigration detention centre in Vathi on the island of Samosin June 2009 found that the unaccompanied children in the centre had been detained for between two to threemonths. According to reports many of the unaccompanied children were in poor psychological health as aresult of their prolonged period of detention, and some had shown suicidal tendencies. The long time thatthese children were kept in the centre was a result of two factors. In the first place, before being released fromdetention, they had to wait for a place to be found at a special reception centre for unaccompanied children.108Secondly, it was difficult for the prosecutors to appoint a permanent guardian who would also be responsiblefor the transfer of the children to special reception centres.A local social workers’ representative informed Amnesty International that, since April 2009 social workers ofthe island had protested against their appointment as permanent legal guardians of the unaccompaniedchildren on the grounds that this was not part of their job description. Their concerns were also increased bysecurity risks posed by a lack of transport organized by the authorities during a previous transfer. Anotherconcern was that responsibility for the unaccompanied children remains with the appointed permanentguardian, even after the children have been transferred to special accommodation.109In an interview with the local prosecutor, the delegates were told that the local authorities were trying to find away of allowing the children to be transferred to centres in other parts of Greece, such as by appointing aspermanent guardians the directors of the special centres to which the young people would be sent.110However,until a solution was found the children could not leave the centre, since the prosecutor believed theimmigration detention centre was the only place where the unaccompanied children could be kept safe until away could be found to transfer them.Both the local prosecutor and the social workers’ representative pointed out that Article 49 of Law 2447/1996providing for the establishment of a Judicial Social Service under the supervision of the Ministry of Justice hasnot been implemented. The establishment of such an authority, according to the local prosecutors, would solvethe problem because specialist staff under the supervision of the service could be appointed as permanentguardians for unaccompanied children and allow them to be housed.111In October 2009, Amnesty International was informed that at least 15-20 unaccompanied children were

4.2. UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN DETAINED WITH ADULTSThere are many instances where unaccompanied children are detained among adults, eitherdue to a lack of separate areas in the detention places where they are held, or because theyhave been registered as adults.During Amnesty International’s visit to the Ferres borderguard station in June 2009, thepolice officer in charge told delegates that there were no children among the adult maleirregular migrants and asylum-seekers detained. However, during their visit to the cells, 10 ofthe individuals detained told delegates that they were minors. Furthermore, AmnestyInternational has also heard from lawyers who identified unaccompanied male children whowere being held with adult males in some detention facilities at border stations, and whoreported that their clients, who were unaccompanied children, were also being detained withadults.113Police authorities in various areas of the country told Amnesty International that thedetermination of the age of an unaccompanied minor who does not carry identificationpapers is based on the minor’s own declaration as to how old they are.114However, there aremany examples of unaccompanied children being registered as adults and detained amongadults despite their statements to the authorities that they were under the age of majority.115According to the CRC, identification measures of unaccompanied or separated children suchas age assessment “…should not only take into account the physical appearance of theindividuals but also his or her psychological maturity. Moreover, the assessment must beconducted in a scientific, safe, child and gender-sensitive and fair manner, avoiding any riskof violation of the physical integrity of the child; giving due respect to human dignity; and, inthe event of remaining uncertainty, should accord the individual the benefit of the doubtsuch that if there is a possibility that the individual is a child, she or he should be treated assuch”.116The following case illustrates the deficiencies in the practices followed by the Greekauthorities in accurately identifying unaccompanied children, and their resultant detentionamong adults:

S., a 16-year-old Afghan unaccompanied minor, arrived in Greece in November 2009. He was arrested by thepolice in Athens in mid-November and convicted for possession of a weapon after the police reported that theyfound him in possession of a small knife. He was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment and a fine, and wasdetained in Korydallos prison for the duration of the sentence. Following that, an administrative deportationorder was issued against him and he was detained in the cells of the Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate (PetrouRalli) until the beginning of January 2010, pending deportation. The police authorities had registered S. as anadult (aged 26) and so he was tried as an adult and detained with adults both in Korydallos and at the AttikaAliens’ Police Directorate. Amnesty International delegates visited him at the Police Directorate at thebeginning of December 2009. S. told Amnesty International that he had told the authorities his real age fromthe start. Relatives of S. living abroad, who had contacted the organization, also said that he was a minor. S.

also told them that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his trial, and was unable to contact hisfamily from prison because he had no money to buy a phonecard.The organization sent a letter to the Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate on 17 December 2009 drawing attentionto the apparent mistaken registration of both S.’s age and his country of origin, which was recorded in his fileas Iran, rather than Afghanistan. In a reply sent to Amnesty International in January 2010, the authorities saidthat their practice is to accept the age given by aliens who were arrested with no papers.S. was released at the end of December 2009 and issued with an official notice requesting him to leave thecountry within 30 days.Amnesty International is also concerned that among the group of 10 irregular migrantstransferred from Samos to Athens on 14 January 2010, and subsequently to Vennaimmigration detention centre in order to be deported, there may have been severalunaccompanied minors who were allegedly registered by the authorities as adults (see section3.1 above).Amnesty International interviewed A., one of the 10 migrants, who told the organization thathe was 16 years old. A. was registered as an adult by the authorities, despite his declarationto the contrary (see section 3.1 above). A. also told the organization that among the othernine individuals of his group six more unaccompanied children had been registered by theauthorities as adults (as 18 and 19 years old). Two of the six asylum-seekers transferred withthe 10 irregular migrants to Athens said that many of the irregular migrants transferred wereminors.

5. DETENTION CONDITIONSOn the basis of Amnesty International’s visits to various immigration detention centres andborderguard stations, the testimonies of detained irregular migrants and asylum-seekers, andreports from other NGOs and refugee support groups, the organization is concerned thatconditions in many of the places where irregular migrants and asylum-seekers are detainedremain poor and do not conform to international human rights standards.Irregular migrants and asylum-seekers held for immigration related purposes may be detainedfor prolonged periods and under poor conditions in facilities such as borderguard stations andpolice stations, which are designed only for short term detention. Many detention facilitiessuffer from overcrowding, lack of beds and clean bedding, lack of hygiene products,unhygienic conditions, insufficient or no access to medical assistance, and insufficient food.Detainees may also be denied access to clean water and toilet facilities. Several of theirregular migrants and asylum-seekers spoke of incidents of inhuman and degradingtreatment by police officers or coastguard officers while they were in detention, andinhumane conditions of transfer from one detention centre to another.International human rights standards such as Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 3 of the ECHR prohibit torture, cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment. Article 10 (1) of the ICCPR stipulates that “all persons deprived of theirliberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the humanperson”.117Article 16(1) of the Returns Directive states that detention shall take place as a rule inspecialized facilities and if this cannot be provided and third-country nationals are detainedin prisons, they should be kept separately from ordinary prisoners.118Article 16(3) of theDirective stipulates that “…particular attention shall be paid to the situation of vulnerablepersons. Emergency health care and essential treatment of illness should be provided”.Articls 17 and of the Directive stipulates that “…families with minors shall only be detainedas a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time” (para 1); and that“families detained pending removal shall be provided with separate accommodationguaranteeing privacy” (para 2).In addition, UNHCR Guidelines set out agreed practices for detained asylum-seekers in thelimited circumstances in which such detention is justified.119The recommendations includethat conditions of detention for asylum-seekers should be humane and prescribed by law; formen to be segregated from women, and children from adults, except when they are part of afamily group; and for asylum-seekers to have the opportunity to conduct some form ofphysical exercise through daily indoor and outdoor recreational activities, and to have accessto basic necessities such as beds, showers, facilities and toiletries.National legislation standards regarding the conditions under which irregular migrants andasylum-seekers should be held can be found in PD 90/2008 and the Joint Ministerial

Decision No. 4000/4/46−A determining the details for the execution of judicial andadministrative deportation orders. Article 13(4) of PD 90/2008 states that women asylum-seekers should be detained separately from men, that the authorities should refrain fromdetaining children and pregnant women seeking asylum, and that adequate medical careshould be provided to detained asylum-seekers.120Article 5(2) of the Joint MinisterialDecision stipulates that “… minors and women are detained in separate areas unless groundsfor the protection of minors or for the continuation of family unity require differenttreatment”. Article 5(2) also allows for the temporary detention of aliens against whom adeportation order has been issued in police station cells if there is a lack of “special facilitiesfor hosting foreigners”. Standards regarding detention conditions of irregular migrants andasylum-seekers can also be found in Protocol Regulation 4803/22/44 on the treatment andthe rights of persons detained by police authorities of July 2003.121Standards also exist inthe Greek Correctional Code (Law 2776/1999) which applies to individuals held in prisonfacilities.122However, the latter standards seem to apply only for irregular migrants andasylum-seekers issued with a judicial deportation order.123

5.1. IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRES AND OTHER HOLDING FACILITIESAsylum-seekers and irregular migrants facing deportation can be held at immigrationdetention centres. The terms generally used by the Greek authorities to describe thesecentres are “special areas for hosting foreigners” or “special facilities for aliens” (Article81(1) of Law 3386/2005). So-called “special facilities” exist at the country’s points of entrysuch as Evros (Fylakio), Rodopi (Venna), Attika (Amygdaleza) and the islands of Samos(Vathi) and Chios (Mersinidiou). Irregular migrants and asylum-seekers are also detained atholding facilities at Attika and Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorates.124Following a visit of the Deputy Minister of Citizens’ Protection in October 2009, Paganiimmigration detention centre was temporarily closed on 6 November 2009.125The DeputyMinister himself deplored the conditions of detention.126There is a lack of clarity surrounding the status of the existing immigration detention centres,since the majority, if not all of them, have been established and operate without the adoptionof a Joint Ministerial Decision as required by Article 81 (1) of Law 3386/2005.127Theexisting centres are guarded by the police and funded by the Ministry of Interior through thePrefectures, but there is no public authority defined in law which is responsible for theirmanagement.128The absence of a Ministerial Decision has also resulted in the lack ofstandards and terms of operation for the existing immigration detention centres.129In its2009 Report on Greece, the CPT underlined the urgent necessity “…to adopt suchstandards, guaranteeing a diversified regime, with activities and recreation, including thepossibility of one hour of outside exercise”.130The Working Group on screening centres has pointed out that the lack of a MinisterialDecision regarding the framework for management and operation of the current centrescauses most of the problems that have arisen in them. Thus, the Working Group has proposedthat the framework for the operation of the proposed centres and the authorities responsiblefor the management of immigration detention and planned screening centres be proscribedexplicitly in law.In the past year, Amnesty International has visited various immigration detention centres.

5.1.1. MERSINIDIOU IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTREDuring Amnesty International’s visit in September 2009, several families with children (manyof them quite young), four unaccompanied minors and a pregnant woman were held at thecentre. Despite the assurances of the police authorities that there were no victims of tortureat the centre, Amnesty International received credible reports that two victims of torture weredetained there during that period.Amnesty International delegates saw three families with young children (a total of 15people), sleeping in a dormitory designed for eight, and also saw individuals sleeping onmattresses on the floor. Families with children told the delegates that they were rarelyprovided with milk for their children.Personal hygiene products, such as shampoo and soap, were not provided by the authorities.The detainees had to place an order and pay for such products to be bought by the centre’spersonnel. The water cooler was placed next to a strongly smelling sewage drain, and many ofthe detainees expressed fears that drinking water from there would affect their health.131In addition, Amnesty International delegates saw children wearing adult shoes. In aninterview with the centre’s social worker, delegates were told that the availability of children’sshoes was dependent upon donations by charities such as the Greek Red Cross.132During their second visit to the centre, in December 2009, some of the detainees asked thedelegates for clothes and shoes. In addition, following the end of the Aegeas programme inmid-October 2009, the centre ceased to have a social worker.In December 2009 many detainees told delegates that they had been beaten and subjectedto inhuman or degrading treatment by the coastguard officers on the island of Lesvos whileawaiting their transfer by boat to the Mersinidiou centre.133They reported that approximately30 people had been kept handcuffed for a whole day in a small minibus. They also said thatthe port authorities only allowed them to leave the minibus to go to the toilet every 12 hoursand that food was only served once. According to the testimonies, the port authorities weretaking three individuals at a time out of the minibus, allowing them only three minutes to eattheir food and then kicking them before allowing them back onto the vehicle.

5.1.3. HOLDING FACILITY FOR IRREGULAR MIGRANTS, ATTIKA ALIENS’ POLICE DIRECTORATEAmnesty International has received reports of overcrowding and poor detention conditions inthe holding facility of Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate (Petrou Ralli). Some 160 migrants,including a number of unaccompanied children, are reported to have been transferred fromvarious immigration detention centres on the islands of Symi, Leros, Chios and Mytilini on 9August 2009, arriving the following day at the Aliens’ Directorate. According to these reports,approximately 60 of them slept in overcrowded conditions in the basement of the holdingfacility, while around 100 slept on the floor of the yard which is used for outside exercise.138Amnesty International expressed its concerns over the reported conditions in a letter sent tothe Greek Government and copied to the competent police authorities on 27 August 2009.No reply has been received to date to the organization’s enquiries.An on-site investigation of the holding facility was conducted by the Greek Ombudsman on27 August 2009. The Ombudsman concluded, among other things, that a number of themigrants appeared to have slept in the yard for at least one night, and noted problemsregarding their access to shower and toilet facilities.139

been apprehended.142Some police stations have cells designated specifically for irregularmigrants, who may be held there pending deportation. However, irregular migrants andasylum-seekers may also be detained in cells designated for those arrested for criminaloffences.143Asylum-seekers returned to Greece under the Dublin Regulation are held in the detentionarea of Athens airport police station.144Irregular migrants and asylum-seekers apprehendedin the airport trying to leave the country using false documents are also detained there.Although borderguard and police station cells have been designed for short periods ofdetention, the lack of available space in immigration detention centres has led to irregularmigrants and asylum-seekers being detained there for prolonged periods under poorconditions.In September 2008, the Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)concluded that “detention facilities in police and borderguard stations are designed to holdpersons for short periods only and should never be used for prolonged detention. Even forperiods of detention of a few days the material conditions, hygiene and access to medicalcare are unacceptable and call for radical improvement.145Over the past year, Amnesty International has visited various borderguard and police stationsand has also spoken to irregular migrants and asylum-seekers detained there. Thedescriptions below illustrate some of the concerns these visits raised.

5.2.3. ATHENS AIRPORT DETENTION AREA (ELEFTHERIOS VENIZELOS)147Amnesty International delegates visited the detention area of Athens airport police station inOctober 2009 and May 2010. The facility is divided into three sectors. The first consists ofthree cells, each approximately 7m2. There is one window in each cell, and the sector hastwo separate toilets and showers. The second consists of three large cells, each approximately50m2. There are separate toilets in the corridor outside the cells. The third sector consists ofnine very small cells, each approximately 10m2. The cells are arranged in a row, off a smallcorridor where a card phone is situated. On the opposite side of the corridor there are twotoilets and two showers.During the October 2009 visit, Amnesty International delegates were able to view the firsttwo sectors where Dublin II returnees and other asylum-seekers were being held. Thedelegates observed that detainees were held in conditions of severe overcrowding and thatthe physical conditions were inadequate. Many asylum-seekers reported that they had beenverbally abused by police officers.148During the organization’s visit in May 2010, Amnesty International representatives wereallowed to visit all three sectors. The police authorities told delegates that the first sector wasused for the detention of Dublin II returnees and other asylum-seekers, the second for thedetention of female irregular migrants convicted for attempting to leave Greece with falsedocuments and the third for the detention of male irregular migrants convicted for attemptingto leave Greece with false documents.During the May 2010 visit, there were seven asylum-seekers held in the first sector (six maleand one female) but no Dublin II returnees. In the second sector, 15 females were held inone cell, three of them pregnant. One of the pregnant women complained several times thatshe could not breathe, and was asking when she could go outside her cell. In another cellthere was a man with an injured leg. Those held in the first and second sector told AmnestyInternational delegates that the police rarely unlocked the doors of their sectors. As a result,they did not have access to the water cooler situated outside, and were forced to drink waterfrom the toilets.At the time of the visit approximately 145 detainees were held in the third sector inconditions of severe overcrowding. Among them, delegates found a Dublin II returnee. Therewere nine cells in total. The delegates were able to view two of the cells, each of whichcontained only one bed (a concrete base with a mattress on top) and held between 14 and17 individuals. There were not enough mattresses, and detainees slept on the floor. As aresult of the overcrowding and mattresses on the floor, there was no space to move around.The detainees told Amnesty International that, because of the lack of space, they could notall lie down and sleep at the same time. While the cells viewed had windows, theovercrowding meant that the ventilation was not sufficient. The heat in the cells wasunbearable.

Detainees held in the third sector told Amnesty International that the police officers did notallow them to walk in the corridor outside their cells, and that there were severe difficulties ingaining access to the toilets. At the time of the organization’s visit, detainees were knockingon the cell doors and desperately asking the police to let them go to the toilet. AmnestyInternational delegates observed that some people who were allowed to go to the toilet wereholding a plastic water bottle half or almost completely full of urine. The police authoritiesadmitted that in every cell detainees used plastic bottles for their toilet needs which theyemptied when they were allowed to go to the toilet. The delegates also observed that thetoilet facilities were dirty and the two showers had neither door nor curtain, and thus lackedany privacy.The Athens airport police authorities told Amnesty International that the imposition of prisonsentences on irregular migrants or asylum-seekers arrested at the airport for using falsedocuments, who were unable to pay trial expenses, contributed to the overcrowding of thedetention area.At the time of the visit, the organization observed a complete lack of hygiene products suchas soap, shampoo and toilet paper in all sectors. In addition, many of those detained told thedelegates they had no access to their luggage, so they did not have their personal belongings,including changes of clothes. Some said that, as a result, they had been wearing the sameclothes for weeks. Furthermore, there was no opportunity for outside exercise at all.Two individuals complained that they did not have access to their medication because it wasin their luggage. Similar reports were received during the October 2009 visit. In addition,concerns regarding access to medical assistance remained unchanged since October 2009.The airport authorities told Amnesty International that there was no regular doctor in thefacility and medical care was provided only when requested by a detainee by calling theairport’s first aid doctors.

5.3. INHUMAN TREATMENT DURING TRANSFERMigrants and asylum-seekers complained that they were treated inhumanely before andduring their transfer by boat from various islands to mainland Greece or to other islands, andby bus to the Evros region.Article 144 of PD 141/1991 stipulates that “particular measures to prevent escapes must beundertaken during detainees’ transfers in such a way so as to ensure their normal movementwithout offending their dignity”.According to the testimonies of some of the 53 irregular migrants and asylum-seekers,including five unaccompanied children, transferred from Chios by boat to Thessaloniki on 26July 2009 and then to the borderguard stations of Tychero and Venna, they were kepthandcuffed together in pairs for the duration of the 20-hour boat trip.Three individuals from a group of 10 irregular migrants and six asylum-seekers, possiblyincluding several unaccompanied minors, who were transferred by boat from Samos to Athenson 14 January 2010, have spoken to Amnesty International about the poor conditions duringtheir transfer. One asylum-seeker gave the following account:

At 6pm, before dinner was served [at the immigration detention centre], they took us to be transferred. Thepolice put us in a cell together with 10 Afghan unaccompanied children. Then they put all 16 persons on aboat to Athens. They didn’t return our personal belongings (when they arrested us they took our money and ourexpensive mobile phones). During the journey the police officers in charge did not give us anything to eat oreven to drink. When we asked them to give us some water and food, they replied that no one gave them moneyto buy water and food for us; they told us: “If you have money we will buy food for you”. So, we ate nothingduring the journey and we were forced to drink water from the toilet of the ship, which is not drinkable. We onlyate again the following day at 10pm in Athens. In addition, during the whole journey we were handcuffed inpairs even when going to the toilet. They didn’t allow us to smoke, but they were smoking in front of us, andwhen one of us asked to smoke too, they beat him.149Asylum-seeker transferred from Samos to Athens on 14 January 2010

6. CONCLUSIONSAsylum-seekers and irregular migrants are not criminals and should not be treated as if theyare. Nevertheless, Amnesty International’s research over the last year has led to theconclusion that asylum-seekers and irregular migrants in Greece are detained as a matter ofcourse, rather than as a last resort.The government is failing to abide by its international obligations to ensure that detention isa measure of last resort which should only be imposed if other alternative measures are notpossible, and only when it can be justified in each individual case. It is also failing in itsrequirements to ensure that detainees are held in conditions that comply with internationalstandards. Furthermore, the detainees are denied or have limited access to various forms ofbasic assistance, including legal assistance, interpreters and medical support. Lack of legalassistance denies detainees the opportunity to challenge their detention before a judicialauthority and can result in prolonged detention in poor conditions. Such treatment ofdetained asylum-seekers and irregular migrants can discourage individuals who are in need ofinternational protection from seeking that protection.Amnesty International is also concerned that unaccompanied children continue to bedetained, in some instances for long periods and in poor conditions, as a result of legislationthat permits their detention. There are insufficient special reception centres for minors, aswell as systemic failures concerning guardianship.Amnesty International notes that detention conditions in the vast majority of immigrationdetention centres are inadequate or poor. Even in immigration detention centres whereconditions and facilities were adequate (Samos) during the organization’s visit, lack ofcapacity and overcrowding at certain times of the year lead to a reported deterioration inconditions. Poor conditions have also been identified or reported in borderguard stations andpolice stations used for immigration detention.The government must also address existing deficiencies in the current legislation includingthe provisions criminalizing irregular entry and exit out of the country, the provision allowingfor administrative deportation for being prosecuted for an offence punishable by a minimumof three months, and the lack of effective mechanisms to challenge a detention order and tocomplain about detention conditions.Recent steps taken by the Greek Government, such as the release of a large number ofirregular migrants detained in police cells for the purposes of deportation, along with plans toreform the reception system for migrants and asylum-seekers arriving in Greece in anirregular manner, by establishing screening centres at the country’s points of entry, areimportant and necessary first steps to address the lack of appropriate facilities for arrivingasylum-seekers and irregular migrants and the practice of systematic detention, but they willnot be sufficient to meet Greece’s international human rights obligations.Irregular migrants and asylum-seekers will still be subject to a form of detention in suchproposed centres, even if they are allowed free movement inside the centres. Amnesty

7. RECOMMENDATIONSAmnesty International makes the following recommendations to the Greek authorities that, ifimplemented, would improve human rights protection for asylum-seekers and migrants indetention in Greece:On immigration related detention in generalEnsure that detention of irregular migrants only occurs in exceptional circumstances, ongrounds prescribed by international law and in compliance with the principles of necessityand proportionality.Ensure that a presumption against detention is provided by law.Ensure that other less restrictive alternatives to detention are always considered first andgiven preference before resorting to detention.In situations where detention is unavoidable, and has proven to be necessary on thebasis of an individual assessment of each case, ensure that asylum-seekers and irregularmigrants are held in adequate conditions and granted access to all procedural rights asdefined under international law and standards.Ensure that a range of alternative, non-custodial measures are available and accessiblein law and in practice, and fully considered before resorting to detention, only resorting todetention if it is established that no alternative will be effective in achieving the legitimateaim.Immediately release those who cannot be deported.Ensure compliance of detention practices regarding irregular migrants by implementingthe ruling of the ECtHR in the case ofTabesh v. Greece.On detention of refugees and asylum-seekersEnd the detention of asylum-seekers for immigration purposes in law and in practice, inline with international human rights standards which require that such detention is only usedin the most exceptional circumstances.Ensure asylum seekers and refugees are not penalized for irregular entry or stay,including by imposing penalties or detention.Ensure compliance of national legislation and practices on asylum-seekers’ detentionwith the ruling of the ECtHR in the case ofS.D. v. Greece.

On vulnerable groupsIntroduce a prohibition in law on the detention of vulnerable people including torturesurvivors, pregnant women, those with serious medical and psychological conditions and theelderly.On unaccompanied childrenImmediately end the practice of detaining unaccompanied children, and prohibit in lawthe detention of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and migrant children.Ensure that the best interests of the child is a primary consideration in all decisionsconcerning asylum-seeking and migrant children during every phase of their presence inGreece, regardless of their immigration status or that of their parents or guardians.Take measures to ensure that unaccompanied children are immediately identified onarrival, through procedures directed towards the protection of their fundamental rights andcentred on correct information concerning their rights, so as to avoid their detention,deportation, mistreatment or exploitation.Adopt formal age assessment procedures.Ensure that the benefit of the doubt is given to young people whose age is subject toassessment, including where no documents are available. This would include taking intoaccount not only the physical appearance of the child but also his/her psychologicalmaturity/immaturity. Decision-makers should avoid making decisions regarding theassessment of the age of young people on the basis of forensic medicine alone.Ensure that unaccompanied children have immediate access to suitable alternativereception structures.Ensure that children are separated from adults, except for the members of their ownfamily unit, and that the facilities in which they are lodged and the spaces in which theymove are clearly distinct.Establish more special reception centres for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and migrantchildren.Create an effective guardianship system that can protect the rights and interests ofunaccompanied migrant and asylum-seeking children by ensuring that there is a sufficientnumber of guardians with the necessary expertise to safeguard the best interests of the child.More specifically, appointed guardians should ensure that the child’s legal, social, health,psychological, material and educational needs are adequately provided for.Ensure that in addition to the appointment of a guardian, unaccompanied childreninvolved in asylum procedures or administrative or judicial proceedings are provided with freelegal representation.

On criminalization of irregular entry into or exit out of the countryRepeal legislation imposing criminal sanctions for irregular entry or stay, which shouldremain administrative offences.Repeal any criminal penalties for so-called irregular exits.Ensure that asylum-seekers are not subject to criminal sanctions or otherwise penalizedfor the use of false documents or irregular entry.On the decision to detain and length of detentionEnsure that if detention takes place, the decision to detain is based on an individualizedassessment including the personal history, and the risk of absconding, of the individual.Detention will only be lawful when the authorities can demonstrate in each individual casethat alternatives will not be effective and that it is necessary and proportionate to achieve alegitimate objective.Ensure that the decision to detain should be automatically reviewed periodically on thebasis of clear legislative criteria, including when someone lodges a claim for asylum.Ensure that migrants and asylum-seekers deprived of their liberty are informed in alanguage they understand, if possible in writing, of the reasons for the deprivation of liberty,of the available appeal mechanisms and of the regulations of the facility. Detained migrantsshall also be accurately informed of the status of their case and of their right to contact aconsular or embassy representative and members of their families.Ensure that all migrants and asylum-seekers deprived of their liberty are able to bringproceedings before a court to effectively challenge the lawfulness of their detention,including through the assistance, free of charge, of an interpreter and by legal counsel duringthe proceedings; for that purpose the government must amend its legislation in order that itcomply with the ruling of the ECtHR in the case ofS.D. v. Greece,to ensure that thelawfulness of the decision to detain can be challenged in the courts.Ensure that migrants and asylum seekers are granted effective access to remediesagainst administrative detention and deportation orders, including through the assistance offree legal aid and adequate interpretation where necessary.Facilitate migrants’ and asylum-seekers’ exercise of their rights, including by providingthem with lists of lawyers offering pro bono services, telephone numbers of consulates andorganizations providing assistance to detainees and taking measures to ensure that they areadequately informed of the status of their case.Introduce into Greek legislation an effective mechanism by which asylum-seekers andirregular migrants can bring complaints about detention conditions before an independentand impartial body.Ensure that detention is always for the shortest possible time.

On access to informationEnsure prompt and effective access to qualified interpreters in immigration detentioncentres, border and police stations and at the planned screening centres.Ensure that up-to-date information leaflets on deportation, detention and asylumdetermination procedures are available and accessible in various languages to detainedasylum-seekers and irregular migrants.Ensure that irregular migrants and asylum-seekers who are transferred from one centre toanother are informed of the purpose of their transfer and their destination in writing and in alanguage they can understand.On contact with the outside worldEnsure that, while in detention, asylum-seekers and irregular migrants are able tocommunicate freely and in full confidentiality with people who visit the places of detention,and have adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world, subject to reasonableconditions to ensure security and good order.Ensure that detained asylum-seekers and irregular migrants are able to exercise theirright to access to legal counsel, interpreters, doctors, refugee and migrant assistingorganizations, members of their families, friends, religious and social assistance and theUNHCR, and that this right is not impeded in practice.On transparency and the prevention of human rights violationsEnsure that, in conformity with international standards, an independent monitoring andinspection body carries out regular, unlimited and unannounced visits in every facility whereirregular migrants and asylum-seekers are held, and includes specific responsibility of therights of migrant and asylum seeking children.Ensure that information relating to detention practices including the detention ofasylum-seeking and migrant children is made publicly available through the publication ofcomplete and detailed data concerning:The admission and presence of accompanied and unaccompanied asylum-seekingand migrant children.Gender-disaggregated statistics.On the status of immigration detention centres and screening centresEnsure that all immigration detention centres and planned screening centres operate onthe basis of a legislative framework and internal regulations that provide adequate safeguards

to detainees including reasonable standards of security and hygiene.On detention conditionsEnsure that detention conditions for migrants and asylum-seekers held in immigrationdetention are in conformity with international and regional human rights standards such asthe UN Body of Principles for the protection of all persons under any form of detention andthe UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and in particular:Ensure that irregular migrants and asylum-seekers held for immigration related purposesare detained in purpose built facilities, which are under no circumstances of a punitivenature.Ensure the provision of a proper medical examination as promptly as possible and ofmedical treatment and care whenever necessary and free of charge.Ensure that detainees have access to appropriate educational, cultural and informationalmaterial.Ensure access to adequate medical care and psychological assistance for detainees,including psychological counselling where appropriate.Ensure that detained migrants and asylum-seekers have access to interpreters in theircontacts with doctors or when requesting medical attention.Ensure that immigration detainees are separated from criminal detainees and women areseparated from men, unless these are close family relatives.Ensure the detainees’ right to communicate with members of their families, friends,their legal representatives, religious representatives, members of the civil society, consularauthorities where requested and the UNHCR.Ensure that a separate bed with clean bedding and personal hygiene products areprovided for each detainee and at least one hour of outdoor exercise daily.Ensure that transfers to and from places of detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers are not unnecessary or gratuitous and are carried out in conditions that respect thehuman rights of those being transferred.Provide training to immigration enforcement authorities not only on domesticimmigration laws and regulations, but also on relevant international standards. Staff ofdetention centres should be given adequate training on the psychological aspects relating todetention, cultural sensitivity and human rights procedures. All staff dealing with migrantsand asylum seekers should be given specific gender training on top of general sensitizationfor staff dealing with migration issues generally.Ensure that the training of law enforcement officials addresses racism anddiscrimination, and includes training on the use of force.

On allegations of ill-treatmentConduct prompt, impartial and comprehensive investigations into all allegations of ill-treatment and torture of refugees and asylum-seekers and irregular migrants by lawenforcement officials.Ensure the existence of confidential mechanisms allowing detained migrants to make arequest or complaint regarding their treatment, in particular in case of physical andpsychological abuse, to the authorities responsible for the administration of the place ofdetention and to higher authorities and, when necessary, to judicial authorities;On nationality determination proceduresEnsure clarity in the legal framework of cooperation between Greek authorities andFrontex so that administrative decisions that are taken within this framework can be subjectto review.On deportationRepeal Article 76(1)(c) of Law 3386/2005 which provides for the administrativedeportation of foreign nationals solely on the grounds that they have been prosecuted for anoffence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment of three months.Ensure that irregular migrants facing deportation are informed in a language that theyunderstand of the content of the police notices requesting them to leave the country within30 days the minute the notices are given.Ensure that deportation procedures contain adequate procedural safeguards, includingthe ability to challenge individually the decision to deport, access to competent interpretationservices and legal counsel, and access to a review, ideally a judicial review, of a negativedecision.Immediately stop and investigate the practice whereby irregular migrants are givenpredated release forms, with an earlier date of release

ENDNOTES1 The number of foreign nationals arrested by the Greek police and coastguard authorities for irregularentry and stay in the country increased from 95,239 in 2006 to 126,145 in 2009 (see Aliens’Directorate Statistics for 2006-2009, at http://www.yptp.gr). The vast majority of asylum-seekers arriveat the Greek-Turkish land and sea borders. According to official government statistics, in 2009 a total of78,329 foreign nationals were arrested at the country’s points of entry for irregular entry and stay.Among them 8,787 were arrested at the Greek-Turkish land borders, 9,572 on the Dodecanese islands,8,467 on Samos, 8,422 on Lesvos and 1,212 on Chios. In the first five months of 2010, a total of28,079 foreign nationals were arrested for irregular entry and stay at the country’s points of entry (amongthem 9,392 were arrested at the Greek-Turkish land borders, 1,075 on the Dodecanese islands, 1,116on Samos, 1,003 on Lesvos and 102 on Chios). The main nationalities arrested on the Greek-Turkishland and sea borders are Afghan, Somali, Palestinian, Iraqi, Eritrean, Pakistani and Burmese. Noseparate statistics are kept for the number of unaccompanied minors arrested for irregular entry, or thenumber of unaccompanied minors who are issued with administrative deportation orders (based on replyof 7 June 2010 by Aliens’ Police Directorate, Department for Migration and Administrative Measures toAmnesty International’s request for information on 30 April 2010; based on reply of 24 June 2010 byAliens’ Police Directorate, Department for Migration and Administrative Measures to AmnestyInternational’s request for information on 7 June 2010). Official statistics for the first four months of2010 show a significant reduction of irregular arrivals on the Greek-Turkish sea borders but a significantincrease on the Greek-Turkish land borders in comparison with the same period in 2009 (athttp://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/2010/09.06.2010_gadp_lathrometanaston_me_yen_4mino_2010.xls).2 In 2009, 30,371 asylum applications were examined (29,501 at the first instance and 870 at thesecond instance). Only, 36 asylum-seekers were granted refugee status protection. Over the same period,128 asylum-seekers were granted subsidiary protection and humanitarian status, including those whosestatus was renewed. The refugee, humanitarian status and subsidiary protection recognition rates at thefirst instance were respectively 0.04 per cent, 0.09 per cent and 0.31 per cent (seehttp://www.astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=81&Itemid=73&lang=).3 See Amnesty International,Greece: Out of the spotlight – The rights of migrants and minorities are stilla grey area,October 2005 (AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005).4 See, among others, Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, CommDH (2010) 13,Strasbourg, 8 March 2010; UNHCR, Observations on Greece as a country of asylum, December 2009;Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment orPunishment (CPT), Report to the Government of Greece, June 2009 CPT/Inf (2009) 20; Human RightsWatch,Unsafe and Unwelcoming Shores,12 October 2009, at http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86025;Report of the Hellenic League of Human Rights (HLHR)on the detention of immigrants without legaldocuments in Rodopi and Evros,Thessaloniki, 3 January 2010; Report by lawyers Marianna Tzeferakouand Natasha Strahini following their visit to detention areas for irregular migrants and asylum-seekers inthe Evros region, September 2009 (unpublished); National Commission for Human Rights, DetentionConditions in Police Stations and Detention Areas of Aliens, April 2010, at http://www.nchr.gr; MédecinsSans Frontières,Migrants in Detention – Lives on hold, Greece,June 2010, at http://www.msf.gr; JesuitRefugee Service – Europe,Becoming Vulnerable in Detention, Civil Society Report on the Detention ofVulnerable Asylum-Seekers and Irregular Migrants in the European Union(The Devas Project), June2010; National Report: Greece, Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), pp 209-221.5 See also,Migration-Related Detention: A research guide on human rights standards relevant to thedetention of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees,1 November 2007 (AI Index: POL 33/005/2007);Irregular Migrants and Asylum-Seekers: Alternatives to Immigration Detention(AI Index: POL33/001/2009).

6 “Greece: Amnesty International reiterates its serious concerns about detention conditions for asylum-seekers following ruling of the European Court of Human Rights”, 12 June 2009 (AI Index: EUR25/006/2009).7S.D. v Greece,Judgment of 11 June 2009 (Application No. 53541/2007). The ECtHR also found aviolation of Article 5 (4) ECHR (see section 3.4 below).8 Amnesty International, “The new legislative amendment on migrants is an unpleasant surprise: Itconstitutes a gross violation of human rights”, public statement, 23 June 2009 (in Greek).The relevantprovision is Article 76(3) of Law 3386/2005 on “the entry, residence and social integration of third-country nationals on Greek territory”.9 No response to this letter has been received to date from the Greek authorities.10Greece: The Dublin II Trap: Transfers of asylum-seekers to Greece,22 March 2010 (AI Index: EUR25/001/2010), pp 11-15.11Tabesh v Greece,Judgment of 26 November 2009 (Application No. 8256/07), paras 20–44. Theapplicant applied for asylum a few weeks after his release. The ECtHR also found a violation of Article5(4) ECHR (see section 3.4. below).12 The ECtHR concluded that, in view of its findings of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR regardingconditions of detention at the Thessaloniki Aliens’ Police Directorate, it was not necessary to examine thedetention conditions at the borderguard station of Kordelio separately (Tabeshv Greece,Judgment of 26November 2009 (Application No. 8256/07), paras 20–44).13 InS.D. v Greece,the ECtHR noted that Presidential Decree 61/1999 (in force at the time when thematerial facts of the case took place) did not contain an explicit provision regarding the legality ofdetention of those who have applied for asylum. It went on to note that Greek law stipulated thatdetention for the purposes of administrative deportation could be justified only when the deportation cantake place, and drew attention to the fact that an asylum-seeker could not be deported until a decisionhad been reached on the asylum claim (Judgment of 11 June 2009, para 62).14 The relevant provision is Article 13(1) of the Presidential Decree 90/2008. See also, GreekOmbudsman, “The European Court of Human Rights convicts Greece for detention of asylum-seeker”,Press release, 7 July 2009.15Tabesh v Greece,Judgment of 26 November; see also recommendations in HLHR Report, op.cit., p12.16 CommDH (2010) 13, Strasbourg, 8 March 2010.17 Press release, Deputy Minister of Citizens’ Protection, 16 December 2009, at http://www.yptp.gr.18 The plans also include management by a special committee of the large number of asylumapplications that have accumulated. Furthermore, a Special Standing Committee was established to drafta Presidential Decree with provisions for the interim period and a draft law on the new asylumdetermination procedures (see Reply of the Ministry of Citizens’ Protection regarding the remarks andrecommendations of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 31 March 2010, Ref:F.092.22/2311); see also the recent proposals of UNHCR Office in Greece on the proposed reforms onasylum determination procedures in “Reception- Recognition- Integration,” press release, 16 June 2010,2010, at http://www.unhcr.gr/Press-Rel/2010/dt16-06-2010.htm.19 Summary of the Working Group’s proposals, 14 April 2010, at http://www.yptp.gr; Deputy Minister ofCitizens’ Protection press release, 14 April 2010, at http://www.yptp.gr; statement by Head of the GreekOffice UNHCR, 14 April 2010, at http://www.unhcr.gr.20 The proposed general procedures are in the following order: provision of information to those newlyarrived about the status of the centre, the grounds on which they are being held and their rights andobligations; initial registration of data; initial heath check-up within two days of the first arrival; initialsocial evaluation, needs of international protection and completion of basic questionnaire; provision ofcomplementary support services (special social, psychological, legal and medical assistance) inaccordance with the evaluation of individual needs, and special services and care for unaccompanied

children and victims of trafficking during the whole duration of their stay at the centre; creation of theprofile of each individual and referral. The two special procedures are age and nationality identification.21 Ministry of Citizens’ Protection press release, 18 May 2010, at http://www.yptp.gr.22 Phone Interview with Afroditi Al Salech, Special Advisor to the Deputy Minister of Citizens’Protection, 15 June 2010.23Migration-Related Detention: A research guide on human rights standards relevant to the detention ofmigrants, asylum-seekers and refugees,op.cit.24Irregular Migrants and Asylum-Seekers: Alternatives to Immigration Detention,op.cit.25 Amnesty International was not allowed to view the detention areas of Patmos police station nor of theborderguard stations at Metaxades and did not view the detention areas in Neo Heimonio and Tycherobecause there were no migrants and asylum-seekers detained at the time of the organization’s visit.26 European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/115/EC, 24 December 2008, Official Journal ofthe European Union (OJ) L 348/98.27 See Article 76(1) and (2) for the grounds for issuing administrative deportation orders and the timelimits for raising objections against the issuing of deportation orders. The decision of the police tocontinue detention is usually not separate but is incorporated into the deportation order.28 Article 76(3) of Law 3386/2005 as amended by Article 48(2) of Law 3772/2009.29 The grounds for extension for a further period are: delays in effecting deportation due to the alien’srefusal to cooperate or delays in the receipt of necessary documents from the alien’s home country orcountry of origin (Article 76(3) of Law 3386/2005). The latter requirement places a burden on thosedetained, which many cannot fulfil if circumstances in the country of origin, such as armed conflict andlack of state structure, can delay or make impossible the acquisition of appropriate documentation (seeUNHCR Office in Greece, Position on amendments relating to the detention of aliens pendingdeportation, 22 June 2010).30 “EU Return Directive affects dignity and security of irregular migrants”, AI press release, 4 July2008.31 See comments in Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, A/HRC/13/30, 15 January2010, para 61.32 Phone Interview with Police Officer A, Mr Karaiskos, Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate, 15 July 2010.33 Interview with Leda Lakka, GCR lawyer, 12 April 2010; seeMohd v Greece,Judgment of 27 April2006 (Application 11919/03). The applicant, a Bangladeshi national who had been sentenced to fourmonths’ imprisonment for selling fake DVDs, was held in detention without a deportation order beingissued for a period of seven days. The ECtHR held that his detention was unlawful and a violation ofArticle 5§1(f)).34 In some police stations, there are cells which are used solely for the detention of irregular migrantsand asylum-seekers arrested for immigration-related reasons.35 Reply of the Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate (Department for Deportations) to the Greek Section ofAmnesty International, 27 January 2010.36 SeeTabesh v. Greece,op.cit; see also concerns over the lawfuness of the practice in a fax sent to theMinistry of Citizens’ Protection and the Greek Ombudsman by GCR on 8 June 2010, p 8 ( “The poorpractices in asylum determination procedures as described in a GCR fax to the competent Greekauthorities”, press release, 17 June 2010).37 Interview with Police Director, 18 June 2009. The maximum period of administrative detention atthat time was three months. The Readmission Protocol was signed on 8 November 2001 and was ratifiedby Law 3030/2002. Until recently, Turkey accepted requests for the return of Turkish nationals andsome other nationalities such as Iranians, but not Afghan nationals. On 14 May 2010, Turkey agreed totake all necessary measures for effective implementation of the Readmission Protocol in a Joint

Declaration signed between the Minister of Citizens’ Protection and his Turkish counterpart, regardingthe readmission of irregular migrants back to Turkey (see Press Release of Ministry of Citizens’Protection, 14 May 2010, at http://www.yptp.gr). Amnesty International has called on the EU MemberStates to suspend returns of asylum-seekers and others in need of international protection who havetransited through Turkey until such time as reception and protection standards meet internationalstandards and offer adequate protection fromrefoulementand a real possibility for local integration (seeStranded: Refugees in Turkey denied protection, AI Index: EUR 44/001/2009).38 See Ministerial Decision 4000/4/46-a/2009 determining the details for implementation of judicialand administrative deportation decisions of aliens (Government Official Gazette 1535/B/26.7.2009). In2007, Greece was found to be in breach of Article 5(1) ECHR for the unlawful extension of the detentionof a foreign national who was subjected to administrative deportation. The applicant, a Nigerian national,was held for the whole three-month period that Greek legislation required for detention of foreignersunder deportation and was rearrested immediately after the expiry of that period (Johnv Greece,Judgment of 10 May 2007 (Application No. 199/2005)).39 Amnesty International sent letters to the Greek authorities expressing its concerns over these reportedpractices on 27 August 2009 and 20 December 2009.40 Common principles on removal of irregular migrants and rejected asylum-seekers, Joint Statement byAmnesty International, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and other NGOs, August2005. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has observed that “...there are situations in which aremoval order cannot be executed because, for example, the consular representation of the country oforigin of the migrant does not cooperate or there is simply no means of transportation available to thehome country. An example of a legal limitation for removal is the principle of non-refoulement. In suchcases, where the obstacle to the removal of the detained migrants does not lie within their sphere ofresponsibility, the detainee should be released to avoid potentially indefinite detention from occurring,which would be arbitrary” (seeReport of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,A/HRC/13/30, 15January 2010, para 63).41 Council Directive 2005/8/EC of 1 December 2005.42 According to UNHCR, the percentage of asylum applications who are submitted at the country’spoints of entry remains particularly low (only 8.8 per cent in 2009; see UNHCR Office in Greece, pressrelease, 16 June 2010).43 Jesuit Refugee Service – Europe,Becoming Vulnerable in Detention, National Report: Greece,op.cit.,p 21144 Interview with Mr Kordonouris, Police Director, Samos, 26 June 2009.45 Police authorities at the Ferres borderguard station informed delegates that following the registrationof their asylum application, asylum-seekers remained in detention while police authorities at the Soulfiborderguard station said that they release asylum-seekers once they lodged their application (Interviews,13 June 2009).46 On 19 January 2010, Amnesty International sent a letter to the Greek authorities expressing theirconcerns over the pending deportation of the six asylum-seekers and the lack of an effective right ofappeal under the existing legal regime on asylum determination procedures.47 Amnesty International understands that, with the assistance of two volunteer lawyers, two of theasylum-seekers subsequently filed applications for judicial review against the rejection of their asylumapplications. The organization understands that no application requesting suspension of the deportationorders was lodged, and thus the deportation orders against them still stand.48 According to the NGO AITIMA the detention of Dublin II returnees who apply for asylum in Greece forthe first time until their fingerprints have been examined to establish that they do not already have a file,has no legal basis (see AITIMA, Programme for the provision of legal and social support to asylum-seekers transferred to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation, 22 February - 14 April 2010, FirstConclusions and Recommendations, 12 May 2010, at http://www.aitima.gr.49 Reply of Attika Aliens’ Directorate of 7 July 2010 on letter sent to by Amnesty International on 16

June 2010.50 The highly criticized current asylum determination procedure, introduced in June 2009, whichdeprives asylum-seekers of an effective means of appeal also acts as a deterrent for those wishing to seekinternational protection.51 Greek Ombudsman, Annual Report 2009, p 42.52 Police authorities also told the delegates that a few days prior to their visit to Mersinidiou centre,some detainees were reported to have burnt their mattresses in protest against their lengthy detention(Interview with Mr Lagos, Police Director, Chios, and President of one of the Refugee Committees inChios; Interview with D. Gatsios, Police Officer, Chios Police Station, 28 September 2009).53 E-mail correspondence with the Ecumenical Refugee Programme, 2 October 2009 and 5 February2010.54 Ibid.55 In their reply to the ECRP, which was also copied to Amnesty International on 1 February 2010, theGreek authorities noted that the asylum-seeker concerned was not detained at the centre but remainedthere as a guest following a request by the ECRP lawyer representing him because K. had nowhere elseto stay. This version of events is contested by the asylum-seeker’s lawyer.56 Amnesty International, “The new legislative amendment on migrants is an unpleasant surprise”,op.cit.57 See,OHCHR Factsheet No. 26: The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,athttp://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet262n.pdf; Report of the Special Rapporteur onthe human rights of migrants, 25 February 2008, UN Doc. A/HRC7/12, para 60;Report of the WorkingGroup on Arbitrary Detention,10 January 2008, UN Doc. A/HRC/7/4, para 53: “In the view of theWorking Group, criminalizing illegal entry into a country exceeds the legitimate interest of States tocontrol and regulate illegal immigration and leads to unnecessary detention”; see also, SpecialRapporteur on Contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance(SR Racism): Mission to Italy, 15 February 2007, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/19/Add.4, para 74.58 See A/HRC/13/30, op.cit., para 58.59 The fine may be increased in cases of irregular exit to €3,000 in certain aggravating circumstances.60 Article 83(2) also gives the Public Prosecutor of the Magistrates Court the discretion to revoke thedecision to refrain from criminal proceedings if deportation is not effected within three months.61 Interview with Mr M Stroubis, Deputy Public Prosecutor, Alexandroupoli, 12 June 2009.62 Interview with Prosecutor, Mrs A Nikitopoulou, Orestiada, 12 June 2009.63 There is no embassy of Afghanistan in Greece; the closest one is in Belgium.64 Following an application by the prison authorities, the suspension of the father’s sentence wasreportedly revoked. He remained in prison until he served his prison sentence and time for the monetaryfine. Amnesty International was informed by the lawyer of the family that he was released in January2010 after arrangements were made for the payment of the remainder of the fine. The mother’s brotherwas reportedly released in August 2009 on the basis of a legislative provision adopted in summer 2009for the purpose of dealing with prison overcrowding (Electronic correspondence with Elektra Koutra,lawyer, Hellenic Action for Human Rights (HAHR), 21 and 24 June 2010).65 See also Article 15(2) of the Returns Directive.66 Article 9(2) ICCPR and Article 5(2) ECHR.67 Article 15(2) Returns Directive.68 Article 13(3) of PD 90/2008; Article 76(3) of Law 3386/2005 as replaced by Article 48(2) of Law3772/2009. The detention order or the decision of the administrative court agreeing with the detentioncan be revoked at the request of the parties, if such request is based on new evidence such as the

deterioration of the detainee’s health (Symeonides,Administrative Deportation,op.cit., p.364; Article76(5) of Law 3386/2005).69 Article 1(2) of the Joint Ministerial Decision No. 4000/4/46 by the Ministers of Interior, Finance andJustice determining the details for the implementation of judicial and administrative decisions ofdeportation against foreign nationals.70 Article 77 of Law 3386/2005 provides that the appeal should be lodged within five days of of thedeportation order being served. Once an appeal has been lodged, this suspends the enforcement of thedeportation decision but not the decision to detain, if one has been issued.71S.D. v. Greece,op.cit., para. 74;Tabesh v. Greece,op.cit., para 62;72 Law 3386/2005 does not explicitly stipulate that the administrative courts can examine thelawfulness of the decision to detain an irregular migrant or an asylum-seeker pending deportation. (SeeSymeonides, I., Administrative Deportation, Sakkoulas Publications Athens, p.361). In practice, thecourts tend to examine only whether the individual detained in view of deportation is at risk ofabsconding or dangerous to public order.73S.D. v Greece,op.cit., paras 70-77; see also the case of Tabeshv Greece,where the ECtHR found aviolation of Article 5 (4) ECHR. The ECtHR took into account the shortcomings in domestic law regardingthe effectiveness of the judicial review of detention pending deportation. Among the shortcomingsidentified was that domestic law does not allow for the direct review of the lawfulness of a foreignnational’s detention pending deportation and the lack of the competent tribunal’s reply to the applicant’sargument that his deportation could not be effected because his country of origin did not confirm to theGreek state that he was a national (op.cit., paras 62 - 63).74 Phone interview with Efi Teli, lawyer, 7 February 2010; see also case ofTabesh v. Greece,paras 11-13 and paras 61-63.75 Interview with Marianna Tzeferakou, 12 April 2010; interview with Efthalia Pappa, ECRP, 12 April2010.76 SeeTabesh v Greece,op.cit., para 29.77 In practice, the cost of a private lawyer to write and file objections against detention starts from 200Euros to 500 Euros or more.78 See also The Dublin II Trap, pp 21-23 and 25-27.79 See Principle 14.80 See also Article 16(2) of the Returns Directive.81 Article 11(1) of PD 90/2008; for further analysis seeThe Dublin II Trap,pp 25-27.82 "In the framework of a UNHCR run project that will run from June 2010, six lawyers will representUNHCR as consultants and provide UNHCR expertise to the state authorities at the country’s points ofentry on first reception, screening and refugee status determination procedures. One of the tasks of thelawyers will be to enhance capacity building at the local level in the provision of free legal aid to asylum-seekers, which is otherwise not state-provided." UNHCR Greece, 4 June 2010.83 Interview with P. Stefanou, President of the Prefecture Council of Chios, 18 December 2009;interview with Natasha Strahini, lawyer, 18 December 2009.84 Interview with Efthalia Pappa, ECRP, 13 July 2010.85 Interview with lawyer Mariana Tzeferakou, September 2009; see also, Human Rights Watch, Unsafeand Unwelcoming Shores, op. cit.86 Interview with Natasha Strahini, lawyer, 18 December 2009.87 UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment(1988), Principles 16, 19 and 29 (2).

88 Guidelines 5 and 10.89 Article 16(2).90 See Protocol Regulation 4803/22/44, Treatment and rights of persons detained by police authorities,4 July 2003, at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/426f1f14.pdf.91 See Amnesty International, “Hunger strike of migrants on Samos brings to the surface long-termproblems regarding the implementation of the rights of migrants”, Press release, 22 April 2010 (inGreek).92 Similar assistance is provided by experts (interviewers) to the Greek Police on the island of Chios. Asecond body of experts, deployed by the Member States in the framework of Frontex-coordinated jointoperations on the islands of Samos and Chios, collects information in order to understand the modusoperandi of the networks facilitating illegal border crossings (e-mail correspondence with M Parzyszek,Frontex Public Relations Officer, 5 May 2010). In June 2010, the UNHCR Office in Greecerecommended the clarification and institutionalization of the competences and the legal framework ofcooperation between the Greek authorities and Frontex in such a way that the administrative decisionsthat are taken within this framework and determine the further treatment of foreign nationals can besubject to review (Press Release, 16 June 2010, op.cit.).93 Interview with A., Afghan irregular migrant, 9 March 2010 (personal details held on file); interviewwith N., asylum-seeker, 23 February 2010 (personal details held on file); interview with Z., asylum-seeker, 23 February 2010 (personal details held on file).94 A copy of A.’s official notice handed to him by the Greek authorities following his release fromdetention, showing that he was registered as an Iranian, has been viewed by Amnesty International.95 Amnesty International sent letters to the Greek authorities expressing its concerns over these reportedpractices on 27 August 2009 and 20 December 2009.96 Copies of these notices have been viewed by Amnesty International.97 The CRC also stated that “in developing policies on unaccompanied or separated children, includingthose who are victims of trafficking and exploitation, States should ensure that such children are notcriminalized solely for reasons of illegal entry or presence in the country.” (UN Committee on the Rightsof the Child, General Comment No. 6 (2005),Treatment of unaccompanied and separated childrenoutside their country of origin,1 September 2005, UN Doc. CRC/GC/2005/, paras 61-62).98 Concluding Observations of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Greece,CERD/C/GRC/CO/19 August 2009. For reports on the situation of unaccompanied children in Greece, seeHuman Rights Watch,Left to Survive: Systematic Failure to Protect Unaccompanied Migrant Children inGreece,11 December 2008; Georgia Demetropoulou and Ioannis Papagheorghiou, UNHCR Office inGreece commissioned report,Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Greece,April 2008.99 Summary of the Working Group’s proposals, 14 April 2010, at http://www.yptp.gr.100 See also UNHCR,Observations on Greece as a country of asylum,pp 11-12.101 There are eight reception centres for unaccompanied children in Greece and 405 available places.Some unaccompanied children are offered accommodation in reception centres for adult asylum-seekers.The number of available places does not correspond to the number of arrivals each year. According tostatistics provided to UNHCR by the Greek authorities, some 6,000 unaccompanied and separatedchildren arrived in Greece in 2008 (UNHCR,Observations on Greece as a country of asylum,p 13).102 UNHCR, “The UN Refugee Agency shocked at conditions at Greek detention facility”, Press release,28 August 2009.103 Demetropoulou and Papagheorghiou, pp 56-60.104 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003. On 6 May 2010, the European Commissionadopted an Action Plan to increase the protection of unaccompanied minors entering the EU,encompassing common standards for guardianship and legal representation, IP 10/5/34.

105 There is no specific legislative provision or interpretative guidance stipulating that unaccompaniedminors who have not applied for asylum will be entitled to accommodation in the special receptioncentres for children. The Greek authorities report that unaccompanied migrant children, whosedeportation cannot be effected, are accommodated in special reception centres (see UN Convention onthe Rights of the Child, Second and Third Periodic Report by Greece, para 384). However, the reality formany unaccompanied migrant children is different. Only a few of the special reception centres haveplaces available for non-asylum-seeking unaccompanied children and there are many instances wherethey are released from administrative detention without appropriate care arrangements being made forthem. Ayiassos special centre on the island of Lesvos is one of the few that accepts non-asylum-seekingunaccompanied children (see UNHCR, Observations on Greece as a country of asylum, December 2009,p 13). On the other hand, Arsis, the special reception centre in Thessaloniki, provides accommodationonly for asylum-seeking unaccompanied children (interview with Arsis personnel, February 2010).According to an announcement issued by the staff of the Ayiassos centre on 13 July 2010, theoperation contract of the centre expired on 10 July 2010. The expiration of the contract led to the lossof all personnel providing specialized services to the children. The staff reported delays in the signatureof new contract by the Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity as well as delays in the evaluation of anapplication for funds submitted by the management of the centre to the ERF and the Ministry(Announcement of 9 July 2010).106 Demetropoulou and Papagheorghiou,op.cit., pp 61-63.107 European Migration Network,Policies on reception, return, and integration arrangements for, andnumbers of, unaccompanied minors – an EU comparative study,Report on Greece, Athens, August2009.108 The unaccompanied children are usually transferred to the special reception centre for children inAyiassos on the island of Lesvos.109 Interview with social worker, A. Theodoridou, Samos, 26 June 2009.110 Interview with prosecutor, Mrs Katsi, Samos, 26 June 2009.111 According to Article 27 (2) of the Children’s Convention, “States shall provide material assistanceand support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing”.112 Movement for the rights of migrants and refugees, Samos, interview, March 2010.113 Report by Marianna Tzeferakou and Natasha Strahini, September 2009, op. cit.114 Reply of the Attika Aliens’ Police Directorate (Deportations Department) to the Greek Section ofAmnesty International, 22 December 2009. Greek legislation provides competent authorities with thediscretion to use medical tests in order to determine the age of unaccompanied children who apply forasylum but does not define the type of medical tests to be followed. Amnesty International understandsthat currently medical tests are not used in practice for the age assessment of unaccompanied minors(see Article 12 (4) of PD 90/2008; UNHCR, Observations on Greece as a country of asylum, December2009, p. 11; European Migration Network, Policies on reception, return and integration arrangementsfor, and numbers of, Unaccompanied Minors – an EU comparative study, May 2010, p. 79).115 Amnesty International has seen several police notices provided to unaccompanied children and alsothose given to adult irregular migrants upon their release, where the date of birth registered appearsconsistently as 1 January.116 CRC, General Comment No. 6 (2005), op.cit., para 31.117 See also UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention orImprisonment.118 Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2008 oncommon standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third countrynationals, OJ L 348/98, 24 December 2008.119 Guideline 10, UNHCR Revised Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Relating to theDetention of Asylum Seekers (1999).

120 See also Article 20 of PD 220/2007 stipulating that victims of torture or violence who have appliedfor asylum should be sent on immediately to a specialized unit in order to receive support and necessarytreatment.121 op.cit.122 Such standards include the provision of medical care similar to that provided to the rest of thepopulation (Article 28), the obligation of the prison’s management to ensure the hygiene of the facilityand provide detainees with hygiene products (Article 25), the obligation of the authorities to providedetainees with food of appropriate standard (Article 32) and allowing detainees for at least an hour ofoutside exercise each day (Article 36).123 Article 5 (1) of Joint Ministerial Decision No. 4000/4/46−A determining the details for theexecution of judicial and administrative deportation orders.124 In Attika, holding facilities exist in Petrou Ralli and Aspropyrgos. Reference is made to the AttikaPrefecture because it encompasses detention facilities in Athens and areas close by.125 In November 2009 Amnesty International received reports that the centre’s dormitories were beingused by the prefecture authorities for accommodating irregular migrants arriving on the island prior totheir transfer to the immigration detention centre in Chios. In April 2010, Amnesty International receivedreports that conditions at the centre were inadequate, with women and men sleeping in the samedormitories and in unhygienic conditions. In June 2010, Amnesty International received reports that thepolice authorities resumed the external and internal guarding of the centre.126 Press Release, Ministry of Citizens’ Protection, 23 October 2009, at http://www.yptp.gr.127 Article 81(1) of Law 3386/2005 stipulates that the special centres will be established by a JointDecision of the Minister of Interior, Economy and Finance, the Minister of Health and Solidarity and theMinister of Public Order, which shall also determine the standards and terms of operations of thecentres.128 Summary of the Working Group’s proposals on centres of first reception and identification, 14 April2010, at http://www.yptp.gr.129 Article 81 (1) of Law 3386/2005.130 CPT/Inf/2009/20.131 During Amnesty International’s second visit in December 2009, the authorities informed thedelegates that they had moved the water cooler away from the drain.132 Interview with Eftyhia Sarri, social worker, 18 September 2009.133 Amnesty International delegates visited the Mersinidiou facility on 18 December 2009, which atthat time held approximately 30 irregular migrants and possibly asylum-seekers. The group had arrivedon 17 December 2008 after being transferred by boat from the island of Lesvos.134 The 2010 HLHR Report identified many shortcomings in the conditions at Venna immigrationdetention facility (Report regarding the places of detention for individuals without legal papers in Rodopiand Evros, op cit).135 See “Third party intervention’ by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, underArticle 36 (2) of the ECHR”, CommDH(2010)9, Strasbourg, 10 March 2010, paras 44-46.136 The Greek Ombudsman conducted an on-site investigation at Venna immigration detention centreon 23-24 March 2010 and its findings are expected to be published in the next few months.137 A. was among the group of 10 irregular migrants including unaccompanied minors transferred fromthe island of Samos to Northeastern Greece for the purpose of deportation in January 2010. The groupremained in Venna for more than 20 days (interview, 10 March 2010).138 http://www.synigoros.gr/allodapoi/pdfs_01/8528_1_EkthesiAutopsias.pdf.139 See Greek Ombudsman,Report of on-site investigation in the holding facility of the Attika Aliens’

Directorate (Petrou Ralli);alsoEvaluation of the findings of Greek Ombudsman’s on-site investigation inthe holding facility of the Attika Aliens’ Directorate,19 October 2009 athttp://www.synigoros.gr/allodapoi.140 Interview with Efi Teli, lawyer, February 2010.141 The detention conditions in the Aliens’ Sub-Direction in Thessaloniki, where the applicant, anirregular migrant, was held for a period of three months in 2007 pending his expulsion, were the subjectof examination by the ECtHR in the case ofTabesh v. Greece.142 There are borderguard stations in the prefectures of Evros (such as Ferres, Soufli, Tichero), Rodopi(Iasmos), Kastoria, Xanthi, Thesprotia,and Thessaloniki, among others:http://www.astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=56&Itemid=47&lang=.143 In October 2009, the Minister of Citizens’ Protection expressed his concern over the detention ofaliens pending their deportation in cells of police stations designated to hold people charged withcriminal offences. The Minister went on to announce plans to release a large number of them oncondition that they had not been charged with a criminal offence.144The Dublin II Trap,pp 11-15.145 CPT/Inf (2009) 20; also Council of Europe European Commission against Racism and Intolerance(ECRI),Report on Greece (fourth monitoring circle),adopted on 2 April 2009, published on 15September 2009, paras 129 - 135.146 There was no outside space for exercise at the borderguard stations of Metaxades, Issaki and NeoHeimonio.147 See also, MSF, “Detention conditions of migrants at the cells of “Eleftherios Venizelos” areexceptionally adverse”, Press release, 11 May 2010, http://www.msf.gr.148The Dublin II Trap,p 13.149 Interview on 23 February 2010