Out of the spotlight: The rights of foreigners and minorities are still a grey area problem and announced that it would look at a reform of its appeal system. The data presented in this report shows that the lack of substantial reforms in this area has led to serious violations of the human rights of applicants. The first instance examination of applications is carried out by the Ministry of Public Order, which is also charged with guarding the country’s borders and preventing the entry of undocumented migrants. Given the fact that many of these individuals subsequently seek asylum, it is likely that of some the first instance decisions of the Ministry of Public Order could be tainted with subjective bias against the applicants, and that these decisions could be inaccurate. An independent review of the substance of rejected asylum applications would help to ensure that asylum applications are not rejected without due cause, and those asylum-seekers who would be at risk of torture or other serious human rights violations are not returned to their countries of origin. Instead, under the current provisions, the Ministry is also charged with reviewing decisions to reject an asylum claim. The intervention of UNHCR in these decisions is severely limited – at first instance, the UNHCR may provide information relevant to the case, while at the review stage an expert sits on the “Appeals Board” but effectively has no vote, since the Board is not a decision-making, but a consultative body.17 A re-examination ab initio of an application, which is available to applicants who have been rejected at the second stage, can be ordered by the Council of State. However, the scope of the Council of State’s review of the case is restricted by the fact that it is solely a procedural review, which examines the preceding process of examination but not the substance of the claim. Amnesty International believes that the assessment of asylum claims should include an independent review of negative decisions that would allow the 11 application to be considered by an independent body on both points of law and facts. Absence of such a review constitutes a violation of international refugee law because it exposes individuals to the risk of refoulement. The European Court of Human Rights has clearly stated that “the authority referred to in article 13 may not necessarily be a judicial authority but, if it is not, its powers and the guarantees that it affords are relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective” (ECHR, Silver and others v. United Kingdom, judgment 25 March 1983). In the case of Klaas and others v. Germany, 6 September 1988, the European Court has further developed its ruling. According to this jurisprudence, “a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when that authority is judicial; or, if it is a quasi-judicial or administrative authority, it is clearly identified and composed of members who are impartial and who enjoy safeguards of independence; […] The remedy is accessible for the rejected asylum-seeker; and the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a [final] decision is taken.” The Court further stated that the appeal authority must have competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided by Article 3 of the ECHR and to grant appropriate relief. This jurisprudence has been codified in the Recommendation n° R (98) 13 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the right of rejected asylum-seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of Article 3 ECHR. It should also be noted that the right to an effective remedy before a court of law or a tribunal is also embedded in article II-47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 38 of the draft EU directive on asylum procedures.18 The present system falls short of these provisions. 18 17 This limitation has in fact been cited as one of the contributing factors rendering Greece “an unsafe host country” (Skordas and Sitaropoulos, ibid). Amnesty International 5 October 2005 Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status on 29 April 2004, 8771/04 Asile 33. AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005