Source: Xanthi PRDC, MIT respondent These unsanitary conditions have a drastic impact on the health and wellbeing of detainees, denying a dignified living environment and significantly increasing the levels of stress of respondents. As previously mentioned, when applicants of international protection are detained alongside third country nationals subject to return orders, both groups should be treated in accordance with the RCD. The RCD states that applicants who are in detention should be treated with full respect for human dignity.[217] The treatment of detainees in Greek PRDCs does not align with European legislation, on the basis of the conditions of the detention centres alone. This brings to question Article 50(2) of Greek law, [218] whereby the absence of appropriate detention facilities, and difficulty in ensuring decent living conditions for applicants should be taken into account before issuing a detention order or extension. Furthermore, the systematic lack of access to functional toilet or shower facilities and cleaning products could amount to degrading treatment, and a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention, as per the Ananyev and others v. Russia ruling.[219] According to the ECtHR and the CPT, the judgment ruled that: “access to properly equipped and hygienic sanitary facilities is of paramount importance for maintaining the inmates’ sense of personal dignity. Not only are hygiene and cleanliness integral parts of the respect that individuals owe to their bodies and to their neighbours with whom they share premises for long periods of time, they also constitute a condition and at the same time a necessity for the conservation of health. A truly humane environment is not possible without ready access to toilet facilities or the possibility of keeping one’s body clean.” [220] Source: Corinth PRDC cell, MIT respondent In the same Court ruling, the provision of sanitary precautions including measures against infestation with rodents, fleas, lice, bed bugs and other vermin was emphasised, in order to prevent discordance with the ECHR. The frequent reports of insect infestations, particularly in Corinth, also lies in contradiction to this ruling. Building on the latter jurisprudence the Court recalls in its case of Aden Ahmed v. Malta that several aspects of material conditions are taken into account in assessing compliance with Article 3. This includes “the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygienic requirements”.[221] Inside the prison when I was there we had to bear the problem of insects, that they were biting us, and stinging us during the night and it was difficult to sleep during the night. We made a lot of complaints but nobody care about that and that meanwhile we had a lot of mental problems. Afran, Corinth 61