NGO's and IO’s present as well as the only lawyer working at the centre, made it clear that the flow of information towards the detainees is definitely insufficient and that standard detention times have been adopted for different nationalities. Those who do not claim asylum are released quicker and are given 1 month to remain in Greece in order to prepare for departure. However, most of them do abscond. Our impression is that a deliberate policy is adhered to try to encourage people not to claim asylum, corroborated by the fact that (apparently) none of the detainees are fingerprinted for identification. 6. Meeting with the Greek Ombudsman, Mr Giorgios KAMINIS and his deputy, Mr Andreas TAKIS (14.06.2007) The Ombudsman explained the background of the current situation in Greece; from a migrant sending - to migrant receiving country. He went on by saying that many irregular migrants are victims of human traffickers. Most of the time they are told by the traffickers to get rid of their identification papers. However, they are not (or hardly) aware of the fact that they are simply not welcome in the EU. He confirmed that Greece is considered as a transit country by many arrivals. The fact that many irregular migrants are able to ‘live’ within Greece is obviously connected to the still flourishing informal (black) economy. Furthermore the ombudsman said that legislation foresees that an asylum seeker can only be kept in a detention centre by way of exception. However, the trend is the other way around. Police officials do not differentiate between asylum seekers and irregular migrants. He doubted whether the police officers are truly examining the asylum requests (if examination is taking place at all) and signalled significant problems in the procedures being followed, e.g. no notification of decision taken, no possibilities for appeal. Following his impressions asylum seekers as well as irregular migrants are not informed properly about the possibilities or impossibilities (as regards procedures/requests). The lack of specialised staff is a great concern. According to his observations minors are treated as violators of the law rather than people in need of protection. The fear that ‘being too human’ would act as an incentive to other potential irregular migrants, appears to play a role. If people cannot be expelled (for example to Darfur or Iraq) it does not make sense to detain them for 3 months, he said. More specifically the Ombudsman identified the following problems with regard to the protection of persons seeking asylum: ● Issues of erroneous interpretation of the existing framework such as the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. ● The expulsion and detention of asylum seekers (statutory measures for the expulsion and detention of irregular migrants are applied to those seeking asylum as well). ● The failure of the police to safeguard the exercise of the right of appeal and judicial protection of asylum seekers. ● The preconditions for discontinuing the examination of an asylum application. ● The lack of effective access to asylum procedures in harbours, airport transit zones and foreign flagged ships calling at Greek ports. ● The inability or unwillingness of the police to apply the regulations relating to the procedures for granting political asylum, even when these have been clarified via circulars. He concluded by stating that some positive developments are taking place, however, the PV\675423EN.doc 7/16 PE 392.010v02-00 EN