complying with the MSS ruling. On the other hand by denying the registration of asylum claims on the border it disregards its obligations deriving from the Dublin II Regulation. to Greece, where they faced further risk of being readmitted back to Turkey (chain readmission), this report aims to highlight the systematic character of the ongoing arbitrary massive readmissions from Italy to Greece, as well as the procedure followed by the Italian authorities upon apprehension. This practice violates directly the European Asylum Law: the principle of non refoulement (article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention); the prohibition 1.1. Methodology to return someone in a country where he risks exposure to torture or other forms of degrading, inhuman or cruel treatment or punishment (article 13 3 ECHR); the prohibition of collective expulsion Pro Asyl in co-operation with the Greek Council (article 4 of Protocol 4 ECHR) and the international for Refugees, conducted a research at the Italian ports14 of Venice, Ancona, Bari, Brindisi as well as obligation to protect unaccompanied minors. at the port of Patras during April (2.4-5.4) and May Although Italy has been already condemned by (11.5-15.5), 2012. During these missions, the research the ECHR in the case of Hirsi and others v Italy10 team (the team) visited Patras, the main Greek concerning the massive removals from Italy to Libya port of departure and all four main Italian ports breaching article 4 of Protocol 4 ECHR (prohibition of destination in the Adriatic Sea for those trying of collective expulsion of aliens), article 3 (risk of to seek international protection outside Greece. ill-treatment in Libya and in the country of origin) Additionally and with the aim of meeting people and article 3 in conjunction with 13 (violation of who may have been subjected to the Greek-Italian an effective remedy), it continues until today Readmission Agreement, the team visited various the practice of arbitrary removals in all of its sea sites, where undocumented migrants and asylum borders.11 seekers temporarily reside in both countries15. In light of Sharifi and others v Greece and Italy12 case (lodged on 25.3.2009), pending before the ECtHR Grand Chamber, concerning a group of people in need of international protection readmitted back 10 Hirsi and others v Italy http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/ eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-109231 11 http://sim.law.uu.nl/sim/caselaw/Hof.nsf/233813e6976200 22c1256864005232b7/2b3b4d6a38269c0cc12579a70032afd8?Open Document 12 The submission contains 27 cases, which occurred between April 2008 and September 2009. The list is based on the testimony of affected individuals (interviews conducted by UNHCR at border areas and in detention facilities), and on reports from UNHCR partners, including non-governmental organizations. In all cases, the persons were later located, either in their countries of origin after onward removal from Turkey; in Greece, after a new attempt to reach the European Union; or in Turkey. In one case, the individuals were asylum-seekers whose claims were not registered in Greece despite intervention by UNHCR and other agencies. Asylum-seekers and people who may be in need of international protection have been returned to Greece without being informed adequately about their right to seek asylum in Italy, and without being afforded the possibility to lodge an asylum application. Among these problematic cases, UNHCR is aware of cases of removal in which deportation orders have been issued to unaccompanied minors without any assessment of their needs, nor examination or referrals to competent authorities of requests for international protection. In UNHCR’s view, such practice is contrary to the principle of the best interest of the child, which should be a primary consideration in all actions regarding children. UNHCR Written Submission http://www.unhcr.org/4deccee39.pdf We talked with more than 50 persons in Athens and Patras who reportedly had been at least once readmitted back to Greece. As the stories we heard had numerous common elements, we will report a sample of the interviews conducted considering that they clearly delineate the procedures followed by the Italian authorities in all of its ports (official and unofficial border crossing points). Interviews were conducted in the following languages: Dari, Arabic, English, French and Italian. The team also, held meetings with the Greek authorities16, NGOs’ staff and other social actors 13 The team consisted of two lawyers (Tzeferakou and Tsapopoulou, a social anthropologist and Farsi interpreter (Stroux), as well as an interpreter for Arabic 14 The lawyer of the team Tsapopoulou visited the Italian ports of Venice (16-18.4), Ancona (22.4-24.4), Bari (24.4-26,4 & 28.4) and Brindisi (27.4). 15 The lawyer of the team Tsapopoulou visited the following places and conducted interviews with holders of international protection in Italy, asylum seekers, members of Solidarity Groups and NGOs, accomodation shelters and provisional places in the following cities: Rome, Venice, Ancona, Bari, Brindisi. In Patras we met interviewees in their makeshift shelters. In Athens we visited places where readmitted persons meet and held interviews in the premises of GCR 16 An official meeting was held with the Ministry of Citizen Protection (11.6.2012) and an unofficial with the port authorities in 5