A/HRC/35/25/Add.2. Distr.: General 24 April 2017 Arabic Original: English الجمعية اإلنسان

Transcription

1 Distr.: General 24 April 2017 Arabic Original: English تحدة ا األمف العامة الجمعية اإلنسان حقوق مجلس والثالثون الخامسة الدورة ٢٠١٧ حزيران/يونيه ٢٣-٦ األعمال جدول من ٣ البند واالقتصادية والسياسية المدنية اإلنسان حقوق جميع وحماية تعزيز التنمية في الحق ذلك في بما والثقافية واالجتماعية بعثتررر عررر ررراجري للم اإلنسررران بحقررروق المعنررري الخررراب المقررررر تقريررر اليونان إلى األمانة م مذكرة رررر ا ررررا ا رررررر ا ترريررررر رررران اان حرررررو إلنررررق ق ىليررررق بررررلن األمانرررر تتشرررررا ١٢ مرن رنة ال ل اليونران ق ارا قرا اليت تاب ا ة زيا عن كريبو وا فران لنمهاجرين ان اان حبرو ٢٠١٦. /مايو أيا ١٦ ق الوطنيررر نررر والن رررد ا تمرررمل ا ومنلمرررا اجملتومررر ومنرررت مرررمل رررا ا ررررر ا واجتمرررمل ل ون وجررو ا فرريهف مررن ررهف أن هرراجرين ا عررن ا رر ف لررا ا أمرر ومتتررا رران اان جملرررو. الرمسي غري خيما وا از االحت مراكز ررا ا رررر ا ررنف وي. واجملدو رة اهل ون رر ة ا ق ق الراميرر ررا يا وال الررروان بشررلن رررز ا بالترررد را ا ررر ا يوملرت وو األو ىلرا ل جير ا ا اجملردو عنرى الرريف رت اليونران أن ومرا ران اان حررو عنرى مر قا مر ا حنروالا وو األو االىلرا را وم اليونان حتوم د توج بلن واعتما اجملدو ة ا ق ل تممن ا اهلام لل ا ذلك ل ما اليونان ل وء الن وطاليب لنمهاجرين ان. اان جملرو الدويل لنرانون وفرا والتنرق رة لنه األجق طوين ي ناتي ا ا يا GE (A)

2 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants on his mission to Greece* I. Introduction 1. From 12 to 16 May 2016, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants conducted an official follow-up visit to Greece, at the invitation of the Government. The mission was carried out in the context of follow-up to the Special Rapporteur s year-long study on the management of the external borders of the European Union and its impact on the human rights of migrants (A/HRC/23/46), which included a mission to Greece (A/HRC/23/46/Add.4), and of his thematic report on European Union border management (A/HRC/29/36). 2. In September 2014, the Human Rights Council, through presidential statement 27/3, requested the Special Rapporteur to pay particular attention to the protection of migrants at sea. Consequently, the present report is focused on external border control and does not provide a comprehensive overview of the broader human rights situation of all migrants in Greece. The visit gave the Special Rapporteur the opportunity to assess the progress made, as well as the obstacles and challenges that remain, in protecting and promoting the rights of migrants in the Euro-Mediterranean region. 3. The Special Rapporteur visited Athens, Idomeni and Polykastro in Central Macedonia, as well as the Aegean islands of Samos and Lesvos. He met with State officials at the national and local levels, international organizations, European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) officials, civil society organizations and migrants themselves. He also visited several places of detention and official and unofficial camps, namely Polykastro Police Station, the unofficial camp in Idomeni, the Vathy Reception and Identification Centre in Samos, the Elliniko Pre-Removal Centre for Migrant Women at Elliniko Police Station, the camp in the Olympic stadium of Elliniko, and the Moria Reception and Identification Centre in Lesvos. 4. The Special Rapporteur expresses his sincere appreciation for the cooperation extended to him by the Government prior to, throughout and after the visit. He also thanks the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and civil society organizations for their valuable contributions. II. General background: migration and border management in Greece 5. In the past two years, Greece has been the main entry point for irregular migrants coming to Europe. More than 900,000 migrants arrived in Greece in 2015, of whom 93 per cent arrived by sea Most of those migrants intended to transit through Greece and travel towards northern Europe. When the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia decided to close its border with Greece, more than 10,000 migrants got stuck at the border in Idomeni. Another 35,000 migrant women, men and children were living in open reception facilities or in unofficial camps throughout the Greek mainland The first reception and identification centre started operations in March 2013 at the Greek-Turkish border region in Evros. Greece built five additional reception and identification centres on five Greek Aegean islands between October 2015 and March 2016, four of which were functioning at the time of the visit. * Circulated in the language of submission only. 1 International Organization for Migration, Global migration trends factsheet 2015, available from 2 UNHCR, Daily map indicating capacity and occupancy, as of 16 May 2016, available from GE

3 8. Additionally, with the European Union-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 (discussed in detail in paras below) having been implemented, migrants arriving on the islands after 20 March 2016 have had only two options: to apply for asylum or to be returned to Turkey. This has resulted in 90 per cent of migrants trying to apply for asylum in Greece. The situation has stretched the capacity of the Greek Asylum Service and has led to a complicated system of registration and pre-registration. 9. Following the European Union-Turkey statement, migrants were no longer transferred from the Greek islands to the mainland, resulting in overcrowded situations in the reception and identification centres on the islands, with migrants often lacking access to sanitary facilities, medicine, adequate shelter and food. 10. Even though the Greek system was not prepared to host and process such large numbers of migrants, it has shown real resolve during a time of imposed financial austerity in putting in place a principled response to assist all irregular migrants arriving. However, going forward, the country needs a strategic long-term plan to guide all response efforts: one that respects the international obligations of Greece and the human rights of all people in its territory. Despite the pressure on Greece to return all migrants arriving irregularly on the Greek islands after 20 March 2016, and with the exception of two incidents where an investigation has been ordered, the Special Rapporteur was informed that none of the approximatively 25,000 people who have arrived since have been returned to Turkey in violation of the principle of non-refoulement. A. Normative and institutional framework for the protection of the human rights of migrants 11. In this section, the Special Rapporteur discusses the legal framework that has been developed since his previous country visit to Greece. 1. International legal framework 12. On 11 February 2014, Greece ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, designating the Greek Ombudsperson as the national preventive mechanism. 2. Regional legal framework 13. The European Union s acquis on migration and asylum is applicable to Greece as a European Union Member State, and Greece has undertaken the necessary legal reforms to transpose relevant European Union directives. Greece is also a part of the Schengen area, which provides for the strengthening of external border controls and eliminates internal border controls. As a Member State of the European Union, Greece has an obligation to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when implementing European Union law. As a member of the Council of Europe, Greece has ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). 14. Because of two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, 3 European Union Member States suspended transfers to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the decision on the suspension of transfers and strongly urges the European Union Member States to refrain from returning any asylum seekers to Greece, as the procedural and capacity facilities are already stretched to their limit. 15. Since publication of the last report (A/HRC/23/46/Add.4), the European Court of Human Rights has handed down the following judgments concerning Greece: 3 M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, European Court of Human Rights, No /09, 21 January 2011, and N.S. and M.E. and others, C-411/10 and C-493/10, European Court of Justice, 21 December GE

4 16. In Sharifi and others v. Italy and Greece, 4 the European Court of Human Rights found that it was for the refouling State to assure that the receiving State offers sufficient guarantees that an individual will not be removed without an assessment of the risks faced in his or her country of origin. 17. In its judgment in B.A.C. v. Greece, 5 the European Court of Human Rights found that Greece had violated the right of an asylum seeker to respect for his private life, due to the failure of the Greek authorities to deal effectively with his asylum application. The applicant had waited for the asylum appeal decision for 12 years. 18. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has handed down various decisions concerning the inhumane and degrading detention conditions of migrants in Greece, such as in Horshill v. Greece 6 and Sakir v. Greece, 7 furthermore stating that no effective remedy had been available to complain about the conditions of detention. In Mahammed and others v. Greece, it additionally found shortcomings in the procedure reviewing the lawfulness of the applicants administrative detention. 8 B. National legal, institutional and policy framework 1. Legal framework 19. In this section, the Special Rapporteur will touch only upon legislation introduced following his first country visit to Greece in Since then, there has been a significant degree of reform in relation to the legal framework concerning the human rights of migrants within Greece. 20. Law 3386/2005 was amended by Law 4521/2014 which was enacted to transpose into Greek law Directive 2011/98/EU and Directive 2014/36/EU. Law 3386/2005 is the main law governing migration. Law 4521/2014 has since been amended by Law 4332/ Under article 121 of Law 4249/2014, irregular entry into Greece has been defined as a penal offence. The Public Prosecutor has the option, within 48 hours of an irregular entry, to press charges against or to abstain from pressing charges against the individual entering in an irregular manner. 22. Law 4375/2016 was adopted under an urgent procedure on 31 March 2016 and entered into force on 3 April 2016, to transpose into Greek legislation the provisions of Directive 2013/32/EU and Directive 2013/33/EU, as well as to transpose legal reforms needed for the implementation of the European Union-Turkey statement of 18 March Law 4375/2016 introduces a considerable number of changes to the institutional framework, the first reception procedures, the asylum procedure, the labour rights of beneficiaries of international protection and to the management of refugees entering Greece. 23. The asylum procedure is governed by a twofold legal framework under Presidential Decree 114/2010 for claims lodged before 7 June 2013 (the old procedure ) and Presidential Decree 113/2013 for applications filed after that date (the new procedure ), which were repealed by Law 4375/2016. Law 4399/2016, adopted after the Special Rapporteur s visit, provides further provisions on the asylum procedure. 24. While the Special Rapporteur recognizes that the introduction of new laws and amendments to existing legislation allowed for a quick solution to pressing issues, he urges the Greek authorities to harmonize the laws governing migration and asylum under one single act. 4 Sharifi and others v. Italy and Greece, European Court of Human Rights, No /09, 21 October B.A.C. v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, No /15, 13 October Horshill v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, No /11, 1 November Sakir v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, No /09, 24 March Mahammed and others v. Greece, European Court of Human Rights, No /12, 15 January GE

5 2. National policies and institutions 25. Under the Greek Action Plan ( ), three new administrative services independent from the Hellenic Police have been established: the First Reception Service, the Appeals Authority and the Greek Asylum Service. 26. The Ministry of Migration Policy was established by Presidential Decree 123/2016 (National Gazette 208/A/2016) and oversees the Appeals Authority and the Greek Asylum Service. Furthermore, Law 4375/2016 establishes the Reception and Identification Service, as an autonomous directorate, to replace the First Reception Service within the Ministry of the Interior and Administrative Reconstruction. The Reception and Identification Service is under the mandate of the General Secretariat for Reception. 27. The Hellenic Police and border guards, under the Alternate Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection, remain responsible for the surveillance of land borders. The Hellenic Police is responsible for the detention of migrants in pre-removal detention facilities and for returns. The Hellenic Coast Guard is responsible for the surveillance of sea borders and for search and rescue at sea. C. Border management 1. Greece and the European Union: regional influence on national laws, policies and institutions in the sphere of migration management and border control Hotspot approach 28. In response to the unprecedented numbers of migrants arriving in Europe irregularly, the European Agenda on Migration introduced the hotspot approach as the model of operational support for European Union frontline States. The European Union Regional Task Force coordinates actions of Member States and relevant European Union agencies, such as the European Asylum Support Office, Frontex and Europol, with the aim of swiftly identifying, registering and fingerprinting arriving migrants. Asylum applicants are referred to the national asylum procedure, where European Asylum Support Office teams support national authorities. Migrants who do not apply for asylum or whose application is rejected are returned with the support of Frontex. Europol and Eurojust assist the host Member State with investigations on smuggling and trafficking networks. In order to guarantee human rights protection at all steps of the process in the hotspots, the Special Rapporteur encourages incorporation of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights as an integral part of the European Union Regional Task Force. The European Union-Turkey statement 29. On 18 March 2016, the European Union and Turkey decided that all new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands after 20 March 2016 would be returned to Turkey. They explicitly stated that Turkey would be either a first country of asylum or a safe third country, and that for every Syrian returned to Turkey from the Greek islands, another Syrian would be resettled in the European Union. Simultaneously, Turkey would take any necessary measures to prevent new sea or land routes for irregular migration from opening from Turkey to the European Union. 30. The Special Rapporteur was informed that all returns from Greece to Turkey before 1 June 2016 would be carried out under the Greece-Turkey readmission protocol. From 1 June 2016, the European Union-Turkey Readmission Agreement provisions on readmission of third-country nationals would be enforced. 31. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the European Union-Turkey statement constitutes a political deal without mandatory value in international law. Its legal basis is undetermined and it cannot be legally challenged in courts. Despite its effects, the European Court of Human Rights has determined it to be non-reviewable. 9 Greece was put under 9 NF, NG and NM v. European Council, Order of the General Court of the European Union (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 28 February GE

6 considerable pressure to implement provisions from the statement well before its entry into force and to apply maximum constraints on migrants, in order to achieve the objective of returning most migrants to Turkey. Therefore, 13 out of the 202 migrants returned on 4 April 2016 may have been mistakenly returned, as their asylum claims had not been registered. Financial implications 32. Greece has been allocated million under the European Union Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and million under the Internal Security Fund, for the period Additionally, million was granted for emergency assistance, whereas by mid-march million was directly awarded to Greek authorities. 10 These budget allocations should fund reception centres on the islands, provide support for return operations, or fund temporary deployment of additional Greek staff or European Union Member States national experts. 33. While the Special Rapporteur welcomes the support provided to Greece in order to ensure appropriate reception conditions, and additional capacity to process the increased number of asylum applications, he is concerned that the largest amount in terms of funding is allocated to preventing irregular migration and implementing the European Union- Turkey statement, which also funds deportations and voluntary returns. The European Union needs to ensure that the funded activities do not come at the expense of the human rights of migrants identified for readmission. 2. Rescue at sea 34. Following strict securing of borders on the land route, the main entry points to Greece are through sea routes. 35. In December 2015, Frontex initiated the deployment of 293 officers and 15 vessels to the Greek islands as part of a new operation named Poseidon Rapid Intervention, following Greek requests for additional assistance. This replaces Operation Poseidon Sea, and has a higher number of officers assisting with identifying and fingerprinting arriving migrants. Furthermore, it aims to provide Greece with additional technical assistance in order to strengthen its border surveillance, registration and identification capacity. At the time of the visit, Frontex had deployed 734 personnel, which included the crew of 13 vessels and two helicopters supporting Greece in patrolling the Aegean islands. 36. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the Hellenic Coast Guard focused on detecting boats early, leading to a decreasing number of deaths of migrants at sea, and resulting in the rescue of a considerable number of refugees and migrants under Operation Poseidon Sea. Since the European Union-Turkey statement, arrivals have decreased drastically, as a large number of the boats have been intercepted by Turkish coast guards in Turkish waters. 37. While the Special Rapporteur welcomes the renewal of sea operations, he insists that the primary focus of such operations should be search and rescue and not combating irregular migration. 38. According to the information received, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization currently assists Greece and Frontex through real-time information, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations in the Aegean Sea. The Special Rapporteur is highly concerned over the deployment of military operations in the context of migration movements and stresses that, whatever the actors, the focus should remain exclusively on saving lives. 10 European Commission, Managing the refugee crisis: European Union financial support to Greece, 15 March 2017, available from managing_refugee_crisis_eu_financial_support_greece_-_update_en.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2017). GE

7 3. Reception and identification process 39. Migrants arriving on the Greek shore or rescued at sea are brought to the reception and identification centres for the registration and identification process, fingerprinting, and Eurodac registration conducted by the Greek police and assisted by Frontex. 40. The Reception and Identification Service and the police conduct a first interview to identify vulnerabilities. The European Asylum Support Office provides support in identifying persons who wish to apply for asylum. It also provides information on the relocation procedure and operational support to the Dublin Unit, and has provided infrastructure in terms of office space and equipment, as well as hundreds of interpreters to interpret from the languages of asylum seekers into English. Law 4399/2016 further enables European Asylum Support Office officials to conduct interviews of applicants on the merits in the context of the exceptional procedure applied at the border, with decisions taken by the Greek Asylum Service. 41. At arrival, Frontex also conducts debriefing interviews to gather intelligence on smuggling and trafficking networks, following which Europol runs second-line checks to identify possible smugglers and report them to the national authorities. The Special Rapporteur strongly recommends that adequate safeguards be put in place in order to ensure that these interviews take place on a strictly voluntary basis. Such interviews should not take place upon arrival, as often migrants are traumatized from the journey and such interviews may increase their fear of the authorities and lead them to hide protection needs, abuse suffered or vulnerabilities experienced. 4. Return 42. The European Union has funded an emergency forced return programme under the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, implemented by the Greek police. Frontex supports building return capacities through screening, facilitating cooperation with embassies, and coordinating detention and return flights. 43. The European Union s assisted voluntary return programme provides up to 1,000 migrants per year with the possibility of voluntarily returning to their countries of origin. Since 2010, with funding by the European Return Fund and the Greek authorities, the International Organization for Migration has implemented the assisted voluntary return of third-country nationals to their country of origin. By 18 May 2016, the International Organization for Migration had registered 3,024 migrants since the beginning of that year who wished to return to their country of origin. 11 III. Detention practices and legislation A. Pre-removal detention centres 44. According to Law 3907/2011, detention for third-country nationals for the purpose of return is applied when there are no other adequate and less restrictive measures and when: (a) there is a risk of absconding; or (b) the third-country national avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process; or (c) there are reasons of national security. Law 3907/2011 allows for a maximum period of detention of 18 months. 45. At the time of the visit, around 1,200 migrants were held in pre-removal detention centres, in Petrou Ralli, Amygdaleza, Corinth, Xanthi, Paranesti and several police stations across the country. 46. At the Elliniko Pre-Removal Centre for Migrant Women, very few activities are offered to the migrants. Health care is insufficient as there is no doctor present on site, and detainees complained about inadequate health care, particularly those with mental health 11 See Sitrep21-19May.pdf. 7 GE

8 issues. Furthermore, it was reported that dietary requirements and secondary health-care needs were not taken seriously. 47. Most detainees in the Elliniko Pre-Removal Centre for Migrant Women expressed their wish to apply for asylum or to register for assisted voluntary return. However, they were lacking information about the next steps in the procedure and complained about delays in the procedure. Most of them had been in detention for six months or longer, whereas it is stated in Law 4375/2016 that the detention of an asylum seeker constitutes a ground for accelerating the asylum procedure. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the delay in registering their claim for asylum puts them at potential risk of return in violation of the non-refoulement principle and he urges authorities to swiftly register and process asylum claims of detainees. Furthermore, he observes that Greek law provides for the possibility for the Greek Asylum Service to issue a recommendation to the police authorities regarding the continuation or the lifting of a detention order. He strongly encourages the implementation of alternatives to detention. It must be noted however, that according to information provided by the Greek Asylum Service in March 2017, the average duration for the examination of asylum claims of those detained in the Elliniko preremoval centre was less than one month. 48. Alternatives to detention are often not considered by the Government, and an individual assessment mechanism to determine the necessity, proportionality and reasonableness of detention in each individual case in accordance with Law 3907/2011 is not consistently applied. The absence of an automatic periodic judicial review makes it difficult to determine the lawfulness of detention. 49. Detainees have the right to appeal and submit objections against their detention, as provided in article 76 of Law 3386/2005. However, legal aid in immigration detention facilities provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is scarce due to funding shortages. Moreover, migrants in pre-removal detention centres are often unaware of their legal status and do not know about the possibility of challenging their detention. 50. Contact with the outside world is difficult for some detained migrants. Cell phones are confiscated and access to a phone is not guaranteed for those who do not have money to pay for calls themselves. This prevents detainees from obtaining information or evidence to substantiate their claims. Situations of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma may also make it difficult for detainees to understand their rights, thus in fact preventing them from making effective use of existing review mechanisms. As there is no reason for preventing migrants from communicating with family, friends, lawyers, consular services or any other person, prohibiting cell phones can have a profound effect on their mental health and is utterly unnecessary. The practice should be abolished. B. Detention upon arrival 51. Under article 14 of Law 4375/2016, new arrivals are subject to a restriction on their freedom of movement: within the premises of the reception and identification centres on the Aegean islands or in Evros. While the provision does not refer to detention, the Special Rapporteur observed that there was a de facto systematic detention of migrants. Furthermore, at the time of the visit, detention often lasted longer than the legally prescribed 25 days during which time migrants are not able to leave the centre. Information provided after the visit indicates that it now lasts less than 25 days. Detainees must be informed, in a language they understand, of the reasons for their detention and their rights, including the right to challenge their detention and the right to legal aid. As migrants detained in the hotspots do not receive a detention order, challenging the detention decision is impossible. 52. The Special Rapporteur deeply regrets the policy of increasing the use of detention of persons irregularly entering Greek territory, including unaccompanied children and families. Measures must be taken to ensure a proper individual assessment of all migrants in order to identify vulnerabilities, with a determination of the limited number of migrants for whom detention is necessary, the reason why it is necessary, and the immediate release all the other migrants with an appropriate status. GE

9 53. At the time of the visit, there were around 8,556 migrants held in reception and identification centres and open reception centres on the Greek islands of Chios, Samos, Lesvos, Kos and Leros, while the facilities had a capacity of 7,450 places. 12 The overcrowded conditions in Moria in Lesvos, and in Vathy in Samos, were particularly shocking: Moria was housing around 3,000 people, with a capacity for only 2,000, and in Vathy only one part of the camp was open, with capacity for 250 people, however on the day of the visit it was housing up to 950 migrants, including families with children. At the end of February 2017, the number of migrants on the islands stood at 13,053, despite a capacity of 9,014 further exacerbating the situation. 13 While recognizing the improvements made or planned by the Greek authorities over time, the Special Rapporteur still urges the Government to immediately transfer migrants to more suitable structures. 54. Mandatory detention upon arrival, coupled with uncertainty over the future, leads to an immeasurable amount of confusion, frustration, violence and fear among the migrants held in the reception and identification centres on the Greek islands. Since the implementation of the European Union-Turkey statement, there have been regular demonstrations and violent riots in the camps, fights between different groups of migrants, attacks on tents and on containers, and attempted suicides. The Special Rapporteur visited the Vathy reception and identification centre on Samos following a night of fighting, which left behind shattered tents and containers, pools of dried blood, several persons injured and families with small children completely traumatized, and left single females feeling unsafe. In the absence of a camp manager, no one felt responsible for the situation. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the police had failed to intervene, as they were scared of being outnumbered. 55. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about inadequate detention conditions and the chaotic situation in the reception and identification centres, the blatant overcrowdedness, with a mix of families and young single males, the absence of many government services during the weekend, the lack of policing, and the insufficient procedural safeguards in the detention facilities. IV. Reception conditions 56. At the end of February 2016, existing official accommodation barely met the needs of the growing migrant population. Greece had to swiftly shift its approach from short-term assistance for persons in transit, with a capacity of less than 2,500 places, to long-term accommodation. At the time of the visit, the European Union provided 83 million under the Emergency Assistance Instrument to improve material conditions for migrants and refugees in Greece, with funding made available immediately to UNHCR and NGOs. On 9 September 2016, the European Commission announced another 115 million under the Emergency Support Instrument. 14 As mentioned above, the Government of Greece was awarded 182 million by mid-march A. Reception conditions on the Aegean islands 57. Conditions in the reception and identification centres and the open camps on the Aegean islands are particularly worrying, due to the seriously overcrowded facilities. The reception and identification centres lack sufficient sanitary facilities, adequate food and health care. Despite emergency heated housing during the winter, migrants, including families with small children, are mostly housed in tents and communal barracks, leaving them exposed to all weather conditions. 58. The Special Rapporteur notes the lack of a system to detect vulnerabilities. He was informed that segregated sections were provided to host families with children, single women and women with children. However, in practice, he saw families, single females, 12 See 13 See 14 See 9 GE

10 elderly people and unaccompanied minor children living in common areas, leading to an increased feeling of insecurity, with migrants complaining about the lack of privacy and security. An accurate and effective individual assessment mechanism would prevent vulnerable groups, such as children, especially if unaccompanied, from being detained in such conditions. 59. On Lesvos, provisions are put in place for vulnerable migrants to be transferred to the open camp of Kara Tepe or to the Greek mainland. However, due to slow and inefficient screening procedures, and with limited capacity to host all of the population in need, many migrants who belong to a vulnerable group remain in Moria. The Special Rapporteur was informed that only cases that seem to be able to prove their vulnerability through a health professional s screening assessment are identified as vulnerable by the Reception and Identification Service. B. Reception conditions on the mainland 60. Following the border closure in February 2016, the urgent need for housing led to the establishment of additional accommodation centres; in parallel, several informal settlements developed in public squares. When the European Union-Turkey statement took effect, around 9,000 persons were stuck in the Greek capital and its surroundings. In the Olympic stadiums in Elliniko visited by the Special Rapporteur more than 4,000 people, most of them families with children, were sleeping in tents on the concrete floor, most of them in the former airport terminal waiting areas. 61. At the same time, more than 10,000 migrants, including families with children, lived in the informal camp settlement in Idomeni, at the border with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in small tents in open and dismal conditions. Among the inhabitants were many vulnerable migrants, such as unaccompanied minors, persons with physical and psychosocial disabilities and elderly migrants, without adequate protection. Frustrations and insecurity over the future led to conflict and violence between individuals and the neglect of children. Money, or services such as access to Skype, were often earned through sexual favours. 62. The Special Rapporteur commends the Greek authorities for swiftly responding to the immediate need for shelter. The Hellenic Army opened and equipped around 30 camps by the time of the visit and 15 more were planned. The Greek authorities have tried to persuade thousands of refugees and migrants to move to the army-built camps around the country, sometimes with the ultimatum of moving voluntarily within two weeks or being removed by force. The Special Rapporteur received information that the main criteria for migrants to move would include proximity to a city or town, Wi-Fi, registration possibilities for the asylum procedure, access to the camp being granted to civil society organizations (and not only to the Hellenic Army), activities and education for children, and social support and health care for adults and children. Creating trust between migrants, government officials and other actors is of the utmost importance. Warehousing migrants will not respond to their needs. C. Overall concerns on reception and accommodation facilities 63. Serious overcrowding in reception and identification centres and official and unofficial camps on the mainland, substandard living conditions, and a lack of adequate food, health care and information have led to anxiety, depression, confusion and frustration among the migrant population both on the mainland and on the islands. Hunger strikes, violent confrontations and threats of self-immolation occur across the country. The Special Rapporteur observed an overwhelming insecurity, due to a lack of proper policing within the open reception centres and closed detention facilities. At the time of the visit, the lack of sufficient interpretation and legal services was leading to additional confusion about procedures and migrants rights. 64. Access to a medical doctor and medical staff is insufficient, particularly for vulnerable groups in need of highly specialized medical assistance. The Special Rapporteur GE

11 observed a lack of secondary health care: people with diabetes or chronic diseases find it difficult to access appropriate medication. Specialized services required for mental health care or for torture victims are insufficient in most of the places of accommodation. Accessibility of drugs and medical examinations is challenging, as the public health system is overwhelmed. In addition, there are barriers to effective access to health care, when cultural sensitivities are not taken into account or because of a lack of interpreters. 65. The Special Rapporteur observed the absence of separate living spaces for single women, families and unaccompanied minors, leaving women and children at heightened risk of abuse. Sanitary facilities and showers are insufficient and the Special Rapporteur heard of accounts of sanitation facilities without adequate lighting at night or locks on doors, with female camp residents being scared to use the facilities at night. 66. The lack of appropriate food in sites is a protection concern that affects the nutritional needs of the most vulnerable, including children, the elderly and pregnant women. Parents of small babies complained about the lack of food and formula, and specific dietary requirements were not made available in all of the places visited. 67. Despite the goodwill of many actors, their roles were often unclear, which led to organizational issues, confusion and wrong perceptions of responsibilities among migrants and refugees. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned over the lack of contingency planning and of proper and organized camp management. He underlines the need for effective and professional camp management, in order to ensure proper coordination and rationalization of all activities by all actors, thus avoiding loss of control and overwhelming confusion, and to ensure non-discrimination among nationalities, which is needed to build trust by promoting equality and fairness in accessing services. V. Access to international protection A. The steady growth of the Greek Asylum Service 68. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges efforts to strengthen the Greek Asylum Service over the past three years; it has opened seven regional asylum offices and 10 asylum units, providing substantial regional coverage. 69. The intake of asylum seekers by Greece in 2016 was one of the highest in Europe. At the time of the visit, the Asylum Service was not in a position to cope with the 50,000 applications for asylum, family reunification and relocation in one go, which posed problems in regard to access to international protection and regularizing the stay of asylum seekers. 70. In 2016, the Asylum Service registered 51,092 applications for international protection. 15 The asylum system is governed by a twofold principle: the old procedures under Presidential Decree 114/2010, under the responsibility of the police, and the new procedures under Presidential Decree 113/2013, repealed by Law 4375/2016 in line with the recast European Union asylum directive and amended by Law 4399/2016. The presence of many different laws, with different authorities dealing with asylum claims, makes the asylum system difficult to navigate. 71. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the Asylum Service was to significantly increase its capacity by the end of June 2016 and increase the processing of asylum claims from 80 to 640 claims per day. The average decision rate of the Asylum Service for 2016 (for refugee status determination, for negative decisions, for subsidiary protection, and on the admissibility procedure) was 2,032 decisions per month. 16 By early 2017, the number of trained staff of the Asylum Service had nearly tripled. In order to guarantee effective access to the asylum procedure, the Special Rapporteur urges the Asylum Service to further increase its capacity with trained staff, so that migrants have quick access to the procedure, with due regard to the need to maintain the quality of the asylum procedure. Furthermore, 15 See 16 Ibid. 11 GE

12 increased capacity would reduce the overcrowded situation on the islands by allowing transfers of asylum seekers to the mainland. The Special Rapporteur was informed by the Government that by early 2017, the number of trained staff in the Asylum Service had nearly tripled and the average duration of the asylum procedure at first instance was 72 days. 72. At the time of the visit, the Asylum Service had initiated a pre-registration exercise for asylum seekers on the mainland, for them to register their interest to apply for asylum, to provide them with information and asylum seeker documents providing protection from deportation and to give access to services. The Special Rapporteur notes that the preregistration operation had been successfully completed by August 2016, and pre-registered asylum seekers had been fully registered by the end of February 2017, had received interview appointments and had the right to work. 73. In order to improve access to the different procedures, the Asylum Service inaugurated a new system to make appointments by registration through Skype. The Special Rapporteur observed some serious flaws in the Skype-based system, such as limited time slots allocated for specific languages. The system fails to take into account the insufficient computer skills of applicants and the lack of access to equipment or access to the Internet, especially for those in open centres on the Greek mainland. In order to help address those weaknesses, the Asylum Service is cooperating with NGOs that provide assistance to asylum seekers. 74. The Special Rapporteur is seriously concerned about obstructions in accessing international protection and observes that the lack of an effective and quick registration system puts migrants at risk of arrest, detention and deportation. At the time of the visit, no free legal aid system was in place for Greece, and NGOs providing legal assistance had only limited capacity. He notes that in mid-2016, a free legal aid system had been put in place by UNHCR and NGOs with funding provided by the European Union. 75. Article 51 (6) of Law 4375/2016 provides that asylum applications from vulnerable persons may be registered and examined as a matter of priority. In the absence of a functioning system to detect vulnerabilities, it is uncertain whether this provision could always be applied. The Special Rapporteur was informed however, that the Reception and Identification Service, as well as UNHCR and NGOs, refer vulnerable persons to the Asylum Service. In addition, if at any stage of the asylum procedure vulnerability is detected, examination of the claim is immediately prioritized. B. Access to information 76. Because of the changes that the European Union-Turkey statement had triggered in the complex asylum procedure, the Special Rapporteur observed a lack of access to information on the rights of migrants and on procedures, and timelines for applying for protection remained unclear. The Special Rapporteur has been informed that, since then, serious efforts have since been undertaken, in cooperation with the Reception and Identification Service, UNHCR and NGOs, to address this, with the enhancement of the website of the Asylum Service and of its social media accounts, and the creation of an app for mobile phones. Leaflets have been printed and disseminated to the reception and identification centres and open reception facilities. Such efforts should be pursued. 77. In the absence of central coordination, and with the multiplication of different actors in the camps, much misinformation circulates, which creates confusion and mistrust among the migrants. Furthermore, various levels of bureaucracy make the process incomprehensible to most. People receiving the wrong information may make harmful decisions, being unaware of the consequences. Given the complexity of the procedures, and the constantly changing legislation and practices, as well as the bureaucratic hurdles, access to information and legal assistance for migrants seems all the more important. GE

13 C. Lack of due process guarantees 78. Law 4375/2016 extends the criteria for an asylum application to be inadmissible and defines exceptional derogation measures that can be applied in case of an exceptional number of persons applying for international protection at the border. These provisions raise serious concerns over due process guarantees. 79. An application is considered inadmissible for a number of reasons, including the existence of a first country of asylum or a safe third country, whereas Greece has never applied the concept of a first country of asylum. Vulnerable groups are exempt from the inadmissibility procedure. 80. The Special Rapporteur was informed about certain nationalities being processed as a priority and is concerned that discrimination based on nationality undermines the right to due process, as it hinders persons belonging to a specific nationality from accessing the asylum system, family reunifications or relocations. The procedure s priorities should not be based on one s nationality, but rather on vulnerabilities. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, by the end of 2016, all asylum applications were being processed strictly on the basis of the date of arrival, taking into account vulnerabilities and objective factors such as availability of interpretation. 81. Admissibility decisions issued are consistently short, qualify Turkey as a safe third country and reject the application as inadmissible: this makes them practically unreviewable. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that admissibility interviews will overlook protection concerns, including those of vulnerable groups, and that people may be returned in violation of the non-refoulement principle. The Special Rapporteur was informed that between May 2016 and March 2017, of the 27,000 asylum applications that had been made, only 1,609 were rejected on the basis of the safe third country principle and another 2,414 were rejected on their merits. 82. Derogation measures, on the other hand, include the registration of applications by the police and armed staff and the possibility of officials of the European Asylum Support Office supporting national authorities. Law 4375/2016 specifies that the process shall be completed within 15 days including the appeal stage, which raises concerns over access to an effective remedy, despite the support of NGOs. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that asylum seekers may not be granted a fair hearing of their case, as their claims are examined under the admissibility procedure, with a very short deadline to prepare. Provisions under the fast track regime are problematic due to the lack of individual assessment of each case, and the risk of violating the non-refoulement principle is consequently very high. 83. Competent lawyers and NGOs should be able to have access to migrants in reception and identification centres and open camps. Despite legal assistance being available for the second instance of the asylum procedure, the Special Rapporteur encourages allocation of the necessary resources for capacity-building and for local lawyers and bar associations to be able to offer properly paid services from the start of the procedure. D. Appeals Authority 84. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the continuing work of the Appeals Committee mandated to deal with the backlog of appeals lodged under the old asylum procedure. In 2013, 51,000 appeals were outstanding, as compared to 8,075 in September Law 17 European Commission recommendation, 8 December 2016, available from proposal-implementation-package/docs/ /recommendation_on_the_resumption_ of_transfers_to_greece_en.pdf. 13 GE

14 4375/2016 provided for the automatic regularization of applicants who lodged their appeal up to five years before the publication of Law 4375/2016. Greece should continue its efforts to clear the backlog, in order to ensure applicants the right to an effective remedy. 85. With the European Union-Turkey statement taking effect, the Backlog Appeals Committee was mainly examining appeals concerning the admissibility procedures in the reception and identification centres. The Special Rapporteur commends the independence of the Committee, which, in the absence of sufficient guarantees, refused to accept the blanket statement that Turkey is a safe third country for all migrants despite enormous pressure from the European Commission and overturned first-instance decisions accordingly. By December 2016, it had overturned close to 400 decisions and upheld only 17 decisions from the first instance. 18 With such a ratio, the Special Rapporteur urges firstinstance decision makers to properly examine admissibility criteria. 86. The Special Rapporteur notes that Law 4375/2016 brings about several improvements, such as the provision of free legal aid and longer deadlines to appeal, with appeals having an automatic suspensive effect against return orders. He urges the authorities to take the necessary steps to ensure the right to free legal aid for all applicants. 87. The Special Rapporteur notes that, following his visit, Law 4399/2016 was approved by the Greek Parliament, on 16 June 2016, modifying the composition of appeals committees. The new appeals committees are responsible for examining all appeals against decisions of the Greek Asylum Service lodged since 20 July The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of Greece to put the Appeals Authority into full operation, in order to avoid any further accumulation of a backlog and to ensure effective access by migrants to a remedy. VI. Cross-cutting concerns A. Xenophobia and violence against migrants 88. During his follow-up visit, the Special Rapporteur noted that there were five new special prosecutors for racist crimes. Furthermore, he was informed that Parliament had been suspending State financing of political parties whose officials had been provisionally detained for racist crimes, and the trial of members of the far-right Golden Dawn party was ongoing. He also noted that the National Board against Racism and Intolerance and new police units and offices had been established to investigate acts of racist violence. A hate speech monitoring mechanism remains to be implemented. 89. Civil society efforts have been commendable, local authorities have provided muchneeded support, and local populations must be congratulated for their hospitality, their donations and their patience. Well aware that the Greek population is under austerity measures, the Special Rapporteur commends the generosity reflected in large donations of medication, clothes and food items. However, he also noted concerns over what would happen if the atmosphere changed and turned against refugees and migrants. Following his visit, he received worrying news about increases in racist and xenophobic attacks against migrants, exacerbated by the economic crisis in Greece, and he urges Greek authorities to decisively implement the sectoral policies on interculturalism and on combating discrimination, xenophobia and racism. B. Children 90. More than one third of the migrant population in Greece are children. Conditions in closed facilities in reception and identification centres are deplorable, leaving children at heightened risk of abuse, neglect, violence and exploitation. Alternatives to detention, in the form of open shelters for families and unaccompanied minors, with appropriate counselling and services, must be established as a matter of urgent priority. 18 Ibid. GE