Out of the spotlight: The rights of foreigners and minorities are still a grey area In fact, many of the lawyers interviewed in Athens noted that contrary to the provisions of PD 61/99 for a “full explanation” on the grounds for rejection, rejection documents often contain one of a set of uniform phrases, the most common of which is “the evidence provided does not prove being subject to persecution – left the country in search of employment” ( % ). Amnesty International has received reports of cases where this explanation was provided despite the great amount of evidence provided to the contrary (see section 1.5). Academic literature has also pointed to the difficulty lawyers face in obtaining access to the files on their clients, where details of the reasoning behind the rejection are included, which in turn diminishes the applicants’ ability to defend their case on appeal following a rejection at first instance. 33 The failure to fully explain the reasoning behind the rejection decision, which is also the case for decisions made at the review (second) stage, also raises concerns about the extent to which the recommendations of the experts of the Athens Bar Association and UNHCR on the consultative panel, who provide comments at the review stage of the examination following an appeal of the first instance decision, are taken into account. As the Minister of Public Order makes the ultimate decision in this review process, full detailed accounts of the experts’ recommendations would also require an explanation of the reasoning in case of a differing decision being made. Thus the lack of such detailed records and explanations raises concerns about the lack of accountability of the authorities in making decisions. The UNHCR’s Protection Officer’s article cited above concerns one such case, where she expressed fear of the rejected applicants being subjected to ill-treatment upon return and requested a re-examination of the case ab initio. 1.5 Cases illustrative above-cited concerns 19 of the The cases cited below are a small fraction of those received by the organization in the last two years. They have been chosen because they are indicative of how the problems identified above combine to create a procedural maze through which refugees are denied access to international protection and are put at risk of refoulement. 1.5.1 H.B., in his thirties, Turkish national34 H.B. applied for refugee protection and was given a “red card” in October 2003. His application was rejected at first instance in February 2004 on the basis that “none of the evidence provided proves that he was subject to persecution in person ( % ) by the authorities of his country because of his race, religion, ethnicity, social class or political convictions. It seems that he left the country in search of work and betterment of working conditions.” H.B. appealed this first instance decision. In July, having received no news regarding his appeal and unable to work (due to health reasons) and to continue to live in Greece (due to lack of medical welfare provisions), he travelled to Germany clandestinely and lodged an application for protection there. His previous request for asylum in Greece was discovered, and he was returned to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation in December 2004. Upon his return, he was informed that his application had been closed and that he would be forcibly returned to Turkey. The decision to “interrupt” the examination of his application had been taken in October 2004, upon the authorities’ contact with the authorities in Germany who had requested and received assurances regarding 34 33 Skordas and Sitaropoulos, ibid: 34. Amnesty International 5 October 2005 His full details are known to Amnesty International but have been concealed in order to protect his identity in light of the precariousness of his current status in Greece. AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005