35 of absconding and that he lacked permanent largely the same here. For the reasons laid out and stable accommodation and travel last year, the detention practices on Kos documents. In the 10th case, the order instead continue to violate people’s right to an stated that the person lacked legal documents effective remedy. However, since we published to stay in the country rather than valid travel the first edition of this report, Equal Rights has documents, a minor deviation from the others. filed several more objections that provide Ten out of 10 of the orders lacked individual further insight into the remedy’s effectiveness. reasoning, failing to provide any information At the time we published the first edition of about the person’s specific circumstances or reasons for why detention is both necessary and proportional in their cases. This is particularly apparent from the fact that one of the orders pertained to a certified vulnerable person, while another two were issued to people with documented medical conditions. Further, all 10 detention orders refer back to deportation orders that were issued after the individual applied for asylum and cite to Law 4375/2016, although this law is no longer in force. this report, Equal Rights had filed a total of 4 objections against detention, 2 of which were accepted. Since then, Equal Rights submitted 7 additional objections against detention, 6 of which were accepted by the Court. In 5/7 of the objections filed, Equal Rights raised concerns about the clients’ vulnerability. However, the Court only addressed the client’s vulnerability in one case, finding that detention was not an appropriate measure because of his medical condition. Further, 6 objections were submitted on behalf of rejected asylum seekers Therefore, the legal conclusions drawn in the and one was for an asylum seeker detained first edition of this report remained true during under the illegal stay scheme. In 5/6 cases the period covered by this update,82 and the concerning rejected asylum seekers, the practices on Kos continued to violate migrants’ Administrative Court of Rhodes accepted that procedural and substantive rights under Greek, the detention was unlawful because there have EU, and international law. been no returns to Türkiye since March 2020. 3. Right to an Effective Remedy The first edition of this report concluded that migrants detained in the Kos PRDC do not have access to an effective remedy against their detention. In particular, the report looked at the objections procedure—the sole legal remedy for challenging detention—and found that the remedy is not available to most people in fact because it must be filed in-person before the Administrative Court of Rhodes and submitted in Greek.83 In general, the conclusions drawn in the first report remain 82 Detained and Forgotten, supra note 3, at 28-30. In the one case submitted for an applicant detained under the illegal stay scheme, the Court also accepted the objections and ordered the client’s release and transfer to the CCAC. The high success rate for objections suggests that the remedy does function to some extent as a guard against unlawful detention. However, the numbers offer only a piece of the story and ultimately obscure the ways in which the objections procedure continues to undermine people’s fundamental right to an effective remedy. In particular, the Court 83 Detained and Forgotten, supra note 3, at 32. ‘Still detained and forgotten’ – Update on Detention Policies, Practices, and Conditions on Kos 2022/23