C. Safeguarding human rights The challenge of the refugee crisis quate attendance, student behavioural problems in schools, informing the school about incidents of domestic violence, etc.). Although the relevant information is provided in practice by the SEPs with the assistance of organizations that intervene in the accommodation sites, the Ombudsman has recommended to the ministry the production of information material in the most common languages ​​of the refugees/ migrants. Following the same logic, of mutual familiarisation and the fight against xenophobic tendencies, the Ombudsman recommended a more flexible framework for the operation of the DYEPs, through a suitable reform of the framework. More specifically, due to the nature and mission of the DYEPs, it is important to facilitate the participation of intercultural mediators, the organisation of a multitude of social and cultural events inside or outside the school unit and the participation in them, the cooperation and collaboration of morning schools with DYEPs, the voluntary participation of pedagogic science students at the schools with a supporting role, etc. 2.5 Evaluation of the educational integration program Finally, bearing in mind that it was not possible to foresee whether the DYEP program would need to be continued within 2017, the Ombudsman stressed the need to evaluate the implementation of the program, in order to record any shortcomings and the general issues, and to ensure its optimum operation in the coming period. In the same spirit, the Ministry of Education was asked to ensure in time the programming of the next school year, if circumstances of course require the continuation of the operation of the DYEPs, to avoid any delays and organisational problems, which would inevitably lead to a violation of the children’s right to education. 3.  Security issues of the refugee/migrant population The issue of security pertains firstly to the arriving thirdcountry nationals and secondly to the Greek society which is inevitably affected by the mass inflow. Under this prism, we realise that the state mechanisms were called upon during the 2015-2016 period, often under extreme pressure, to fulfil the corresponding obligation, providing the guarantees for the exercise of the individual rights, and also to prevent 66 circumstances and conditions that cause the sense of safety to be shaken in the local communities and fuel xenophophic attitudes. The security of the persons living in the country under any conditions, is the highest duty of the State institutions, and it goes without saying that the safety of the newly arriving third country nationals and the applicants for international protection should be the concern of the competent authorities. It must be noted that during the two-year period under examination, a significant change to the treatment of the thirdcountry nationals, asylum seekers, new and/or irregular arrivals, took place, regarding their detention: up to the start of 2015, the competent authorities, mainly the police, considered security - in relation to the above categories of persons - to be the security of the public. A result of this view was that third-country nationals were seen as a threat to public order and security, and their administrative detention was therefore imposed indiscriminately. The Pre-removal Centers were founded in 2015 and, at the same time, the detention time of the third-country nationals to be returned was decreased (up to 6 months), whereas anyone belonging to vulnerable groups was not detained.211 However, despite these developments, the competent authorities appear not to display the appropriate care for the protection of these individuals in conditions of liberty. The experience of the summer of 2015 was typical in this aspect, with thousands of people entering the country, staying in temporary, and usually inappropriate accommodation sites, receiving an official notice in order to depart voluntarily, and to then continue on their route using their own means - and usually facilitated by smugglers - without any control and/or intervention of the state authorities. The lack of any control pertained also to cases where there were reports of criminal acts (e.g. payment of monetary amounts for transport to another country, which did not take place in the end), as well as more serious suspicions or reports for the potential commitment of particularly serious crimes (e.g. human trafficking, personal injuries). A common finding, even of those watching “from a distance”, was that from the islands of the Aegean up to Eidomeni, there was a peculiar situation prevailing, where the state authorities had simply the role of “observer”. 211 For more detail, see Chapter C1.