52 THE DUBLIN II TRAP TRANSFERS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS TO GREECE 67 Article 10(2) lists a number of exceptional circumstances under which asylum decisions may be taken without a personal interview. 68 Those who had previously applied for asylum in Greece would have had their asylum interview in Greece (if it had been conducted) at the Asylum Department of the Attica Police Headquarters. On their return to Greece, they were usually informed of the decision (if a decision had already been made) either at the airport or at the Attica Police Headquarters. Following communication of the first instance decision, they had 30 days to file an appeal under the previous system. 69 According to international refugee law, the assessment of risk in a refugee determination should be forward-looking. While past persecution may be relevant in assessing future risk, it cannot alone make up the substance of a refugee claim. 70 The Medical Rehabilitation Centre for Victims of Torture ceased its activities, due to lack of funding, in September 2008. 71 See, for instance, Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (NOAS), Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Greek Helsinki Monitor, A Gamble with the Right to Asylum in Europe: Greek asylum policy and the Dublin II Regulation, April 2008. 72 The Greek Council of Refugees is an NGO providing legal aid to asylum-seekers. 73 Alexia Vassiliou, The Dublin Dilemma – “Burden shifting” and putting asylum seekers at risk, 15 February 2009, www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/proasyl/fm_redakteure/STARTSEITE/Griechenland/Greek_Refugee_Council_DublinSituationNote.pdf 74 NOAS et al, A Gamble with the Right to Asylum in Europe: Greek asylum policy and the Dublin II. 75 PD 90/2008 Article 10 as amended under the PD 81/2009. A similar provision is included in Article 3 of PD 220/2007, which implemented the Reception Conditions Directive. If the asylum applicant is a woman who has difficulty in expressing the reasons for her need for asylum, the interviewer should be a specialist female officer with the assistance of a female interpreter. Also, if the interviewee claims to be a victim of torture, an expert on torture issues should make a separate official statement of his or her opinion on this. 76 NOAS et al, A Gamble with the Right to Asylum in Europe: Greek asylum policy and the Dublin II. 77 Human Rights Watch, Stuck in a Revolving Door, November 2008. 78 Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Report Following his Visit to Greece on 8-10 December 2008, Issue reviewed: Human Rights of Asylum Seekers, CommDH(2009)6 (4 February 2009). 79 UNHCR, Position on the return of asylum-seekers to Greece under the “Dublin Regulation”, April 2008 80 Of the nine Dublin II returnees interviewed after July 2009 only one said he had received a notice in a language that he could understand. 81 Greek Ombudsman, Press release 15 October 2009, The serving of rejection decisions to asylum applicants. 82 UNHCR, Observations on Greece as a country of asylum, December 2009. 83 Alexia Vasiliou, GCR lawyer, “The Dublin Dilemma – ‘Burden shifting’ and putting asylum seekers at risk” 84 The police refused to register asylum applications from people living in this camp up to April 2009, since it was not considered to be a legal residence. For more information on Patras camp, see below. 85 See also, Ecumenical Refugee Programme: Re-integration Center for Returning Migrants-KSPM, www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/proasyl/fm_redakteure/STARTSEITE/Griechenland/Ecumenical_Refugee_Programme.pdf. The statement notes that “[w]ithout support from an NGO these people [Dublin returnees] were totally helpless in following up their cases and asserting any of their rights”. 86 UNHCR, Position on the return of asylum-seekers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation, April 2008. 87 Article 11 of PD 90/2008. This provision was not amended by PD 81/2009 and thus remains in force. Amnesty International March 2010 Index: EUR 25/001/2010