In practice the applicants themselves or usually their legal advisor, if they had any, must get such a certificate. Certificates by NGOs providing psychological support have not been accepted neither by officials at first instance interview nor by the Appeal Boards. According to the law, the recommendation drafted by the official of the Police Department shall also include the opinion of the representative of UNHCR or of the organisation cooperating with UNHCR, if this person was present during the interview. The said recommendation shall, where applicable, also include a proposal for examining the asylum application as a manifestly unfounded application. In case the decision of the Determining Authority diverges from the above mentioned opinion of the representative of the UNHCR or of the organisation cooperating with UNHCR and rejects the application, it shall be specifically reasoned. When the applicant or, where applicable, a family member of the applicant is not provided with the opportunity of a personal interview because of the fact that they are unfit or unable to be interviewed as mentioned above, the Determining Authority shall “make reasonable efforts”, as referred to at the law in order to provide them with the possibility to submit further supplementary information. The law provides that even if a personal interview is omitted, the determining authority can still make a decision on the application, but should explain the reasons for omitting the interview. The personal interview shall take place without the presence of the applicant’s family members unless the competent official of the Police Department considers their presence necessary. The personal interview shall take place under conditions which ensure appropriate confidentiality. The law provides that the person conducting the interviews should have sufficient knowledge and skills and be trained on the special needs of vulnerable applicants. The law also envisages that an interpreter of a language “reasonably supposed to be understood” by the applicant be present. In practice, however, there are serious problems with the interpreters. Apart from frequent postponement of interviews due to the lack of interpreters as mentioned above, the quality of these services is very often compromised. For example, GCR has reported poor knowledge of English of interpreters in the Xanthi police academy, as well as allegations of interpreters asking for money from detainees in return for their 28 services. According to the law, a written report, but not an exact transcript should be presented to the applicant at the end of the interview in order for them to approve and sign it. To this end, the applicant should be assisted by the interpreter who also signs the report. When an applicant does not approve the report, it does not prevent the authority from making a decision on the case. The law provides that applicants shall have the right to receive, at any time, copy of the report of the personal interview. If there are strong indications during the interview that the applicant has been subjected to torture, they shall be referred to a specialized medical centre, or a doctor or a psychologist of a public hospital, who shall make a report on the existence of injuries that could be the result of maltreatment or of indications of torture. In practice, however, even applicants who mention that they are victims of torture are not referred to a specialized centre during the first instance personal interview. On the other hand their interview is postponed if they so request, in order to submit the above mentioned report. The Appeal Boards do not always make such referrals. The above mentioned guarantees shall, according to the law, also apply during the interviews with regards to the appeals procedure as well as during any necessary supplementary examination, which takes place in case doubts have arisen or more explicit information about the examined case is needed. 28 See Greek Council for Refugees, Thrace Report – October 2012, p. 4. 21