Conclusion Arbitrary detention in inhuman and degrading conditions The administrative detention of asylum seekers on the island of Lesvos under the so-called “low profile detention scheme” constitutes arbitrary detention for the purposes of Art. 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The discriminatory, nationality-based segregation of asylum seekers for the purposes of detention has no basis in Greek law. Additionally, the detention of third-country nationals who have applied for international protection while at liberty is not permissible under the applicable legal framework for the administrative detention of asylum seekers. The blanket continuation of the detention of “low profile” asylum seekers, pursuant to a stereotyped reasoning, and without an individualized assessment or consideration of alternatives to detention, further attests to the automatic character of the detention under the “low profile scheme.” Likewise, “low profile” applicants continue to be detained, in view of readmission, without their “asylum seeker” status being taken into account and, therefore, without benefiting from the procedural safeguards that the law envisages for the detention of asylum seekers. Additionally, vulnerable applicants often remain in detention, although they are, in principle, not deportable under the EU-Turkey Statement and, as such, not included in the “low profile detention scheme.” This is exacerbated by the fact that the conditions of detention in the Lesvos PRDC amount to ill-treatment, especially in view of the inadequate medical services provided. Lack of access to a legal remedy and of effective judicial review “Low profile” detainees are never informed about the grounds of their detention and avenues to obtain legal aid in a language they understand so that they can challenge their detention. The “free legal assistance” scheme mentioned in the law is not accessible in practice. This is exacerbated by the judicial practice in relation to the “low profile detention scheme.” The Court decisions do not address arguments related to the conditions of detention, the lack of reasoning of the detention orders and the inadequate notification of the detention decisions. Additionally, the Court seems to interpret the procedural guarantees for the detention of asylum seekers as applicable only after the detainees register their application with the Asylum Service. The reasoning of the decisions focuses on whether the detainee lacks identification documents and is, hence, a flight risk. The automatic judicial review envisaged in the law, Welcome the stranger. Protect the refugee. | 21 21