35 already been verified and on the other that they substantive rights under Greek, EU, and should be detained in order to identify their international law. identity. The 10 files analysed for clients detained under D. Right to an Effective Remedy L. 3907/2011 were similarly all issued in a The last two reports have concluded that the template an detention practices on Kos continue to violate individualized assessment, with all 10 citing people’s right to an effective remedy, and this the exact same grounds for detention, a risk of remained true throughout this third edition. absconding because of a lack of travel Specifically, the last two reports have documents or permanent residence. Equal considered the objections procedure as it was Rights also found that the detention orders and remains the sole domestic legal remedy for contained the following procedural errors: challenging detention and found that: 1) the none of the orders had undergone judicial remedy is not available to most individuals in review and six did not specify the country of detention because it must be filed in-person return. before the Administrative Court of Rhodes and manner and without The aforementioned 10 asylum seekers Equal Rights represented were detained from anywhere from five days63 to approximately six and a half months — despite there being no prospect for their removal.64 In general, per the policy in place since March 2022, rejected asylum seekers are issued detention orders for submitted in Greek, 2) although objections were often successful, the conditions imposed on clients amounted to unlawful alternative measures to detention, 3) the majority of clients continued to reject objections because of the possibility of alternative measures, one which includes remaining indefinitely on Kos.65 a six-month period; therefore, we observed that Consistent with the second edition of this most people were detained for the full six- report, the most notable trend during this month period without legal intervention. reporting period was that the majority of Therefore, the legal conclusions drawn in the first and second editions of this report remained true during the period covered by this update, namely that the practices on Kos continued to violate migrants’ procedural and clients rejecting the objections procedure for fear of having to remain indefinitely on Kos and/or risking being detained again.66 For this reason, only two clients submitted objections during the entirety of the reporting period, as One client was only detained for five days after Equal Rights staff discovered the client was certified as vulnerable, making her detention unlawful. Upon intervention, the client was thus released once the police were made aware of the vulnerability. 64 The data regarding the length of their stay in the PRDC is skewed by the fact that these 10 subjects were Equal Rights’ clients, meaning Equal Rights staff undertook some kind of legal intervention that resulted in the early release of individuals in least seven of these cases. Additionally, most asylum seekers were released within the six month period. 65 Detained and Forgotten, supra note 1, at 30-31; Still Detained and Forgotten, supra note 2, at 35-36.As reported in the second edition of this report the local administrative court often requires that rejected asylum seekers submit proof of accommodation on Kos as a part of their objections application or imposes a geographical restriction to the island of Kos upon release. As a result, many Equal Rights clients reject the objections procedure, choosing to wait out their six month detention period rather than face an indefinite period on Kos. 66 Still Detained and Forgotten, supra note 2, at 35-36. 63 ‘Still detained and forgotten’ – Update on Detention Policies, Practices, and Conditions on Kos 2023/24