36 opposed to the 7 objections Equal Rights filed arrested while he was an asylum seeker and during the last reporting period. that there was no feasible alternative to The two objections were filed for asylum seekers who were detained after being accused of low-level crimes (see Section II, Part 1(c)). However, the objections resulted in different outcomes — one positive and one negative. The client with the positive outcome was detained due to an ongoing penal case, in which he was detained for the stated reasons of identifying detention considering the risk he posed. The court argued that having entered Greece as an asylum seeker, the client resided in Greece upon the tolerance of the state but did not respect the state having entered its territory illegally. Moreover, the court denied that the conditions in detention were inappropriate for his medical condition, arguing that the the person and the reasons of the international deprivation of medical services was not proven. protection claim, risk of absconding, and being The difference in outcomes among these two a threat to the public order in view of his penal similar cases not only deters clients from case. pursuing the objections procedure, but also Equal Rights refuted the client being a risk to highlights another way in which the objections public order and safety by arguing the criminal file was insufficient as charges had not been procedure is not always an effective remedy for clients in the PRDC. brought against the client. Equal Rights also argued the detention order did not contain an individualized assessment and thus there was no proper justification for detention, in addition to it containing an incorrect invocation of Art. 50 L. 4939/2022 regarding the client being a threat to public order. The judge ruled in favour of the client, agreeing that the client posed no severe risk of public order and safety, and that detention violated the principle of proportionality, which allowed detention only where there was no alternative and less intrusive means. The second objections Equal Rights filed was for a relatively similar case but had a negative outcome. This client was also an asylum seeker, also had a penal case and was detained under art. 50 L. 4939/2022 but was suffering from severe mental health issues and persistent suicidal ideation. The reasons for his detention were practically identical to the first case, yet in his case the court found that the client did present a risk to public order since he was ‘Still detained and forgotten’ – Update on Detention Policies, Practices, and Conditions on Kos 2023/24