60 »During the interview the officers were looking at the documents proving my story and they said they could not understand what was written. They also told me that they do not have any interpreter and thus I should leave and return in one month. […] The first time I was brought to the interview in handcuffs! […] After my release I had to travel again to Alexandroupolis for the interview. One of the interviewer has told me in threatening way: ›You were 9.2 Lack of guarantees in the asylum procedure in detention 9.2.1. First interview Before the publication of the presidential decree 114/2010, and according to PD 81/2009, the asylum procedure in the first and, at that time, only instance was poor and ineffective. The ECHR convicted Greece for the violation of article 3 and 13 owing to the ineffectiveness of the asylum procedure in the cases of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece and R.U. v Greece188. However, Alexandroupolis’ committees for first instance procedures continued to be in place until the publication of PD 114/2010 in December 2010, and asylum seekers in detention were interviewed with very poor guarantees. After the publication of PD 114/2010, the authorities responsible for conducting the asylum interview became the police directorates of Orestiada (for asylum applications lodged in the Evros area) and in Komotini (for asylum applications lodged in Rhodopi area). The decisive organ is the police directorate (accelerated procedure) or the General Secretary of the Ministry of the Protection of Citizens (normal procedure). The quality of the first interview remains extremely poor.189 In particular, the interview is conducted by the same authority, which issues the deportation and detention decision (police Directorate of Orestiada). The decisive organ is still not independent as it is below the Ministry of Citizen Protection in the hierarchical order. The responsible staff is not sufficiently trained and qualified. 188 See also: Observations on Greece as a country of asylum, UNHCR 2009: http://www.unhcr.gr/fileadmin/Greece/General/Greece/ Observations2009EN.pdf; Cornelis Wouters, UNHCR’s oral intervention at the European 9. Asylum and the asylum procedure in detention the one who complained about detention conditions in Soufli, are not you ?‹ […] I have tried to explain my story to the police but they did not let me speak. The president himself did not let me even finish my sentences. From the very beginning he told me that he does not believe me… before I could even open my mouth. Heeven told me that the documents I had, were ›made‹ by GCR lawyers. It was no asylum interview. It was humiliating.« In the cases observed, there was no preparation before the interview and no information regarding the country of origin was available. The questions asked by the police were limited to stereotypical inquiries. The questions and answers were not properly recorded. No particular interest or care was shown towards victims of trauma, torture, exploitation or other vulnerable groups, and they were never assigned competent medical experts, even in cases where detainees have explicitly requested these. Owing to the detention conditions and the prolonged duration of detention, the asylum seekers, especially those suffering from trauma, are no fit psychological state to attend an asylum interview. The detainees are neither able to prepare themselves, nor to collect the necessary documents or to access effective legal counselling. No official interpreter is provided for the detainees. Until late June 2011/ early July, no interview was conducted by an officially trained interpreter. In the vast majority of cases, co-detainees in provided translation in poor English. Since then, interpreters of the Athens-based NGO Metadrasis conduct interviews via telephone. Such methods do not fulfil the minimum standards of confidentiality and create additional problems for the interview procedure. Videotelephone conferencing is a highly unnatural form of communication, and most, if not all, asylum seekers will have had no experience of it. It is therefore highly unsuited to the purpose of disclosing sensitive information. Substantive asylum interviews are simply too sensitive and complex to allow for telephone or video conferencing. These Court of Human Rights Hearing of the case M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Strasbourg, September 1, 2010: http://www.unhcr.org/4c7fc44c9.html 189 See also: The situation of asylum seekers in Greece, UNHCR, 2011: http://www.unhcr.gr/genikes-plirofories/ellada.html