the immigrants in their own language about the grounds of their detention, citing jurisprudence of the Greek Council of State.19 However, the cited jurisprudence expressly mentions the detention orders in the list of decisions for which translation is mandatory. Additionally, our argument that the authorities failed to consider less onerous measures has been repeatedly rejected. In particular, the Court reasoned that no alternative measures could have been ordered because the detainees, not possessing travel and identification documents, are a flight risk. With respect to the lack of reasoning of the detention orders, the Court found that, in the case of four Syrian applicants,20 the Head of RAO had not provided reasoning as to why it had been considered that they “only applied for international protection in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of the return decision,” and ordered their release. In two of these cases, the Court also based the decision on the fact that the applicants were in possession of original identification documents. However, in the case of another Syrian asylum seeker, also detained on the basis of the same reasoning, the Court rejected the legal remedy, on the basis that the expiry date on his passport was not clear and, hence, he could still be considered a flight risk. In cases of continuation of detention without a recommendation by the Head of RAO, the Court’s approach depended on whether the detainees had already registered their asylum application with Lesvos RAO. If they had already registered their application, but were still being detained on the basis of the initial readmission order and without the procedure of Art. 46 having been followed, the Court would, in most cases, order the release of the detainees. However, in the case of two Eritrean applicants, the Court found that, despite the absence of a recommendation by the Asylum Service, their detention was necessary because they were not in possession of identification documents and they could be considered a flight risk. On the other hand, in cases where Lesvos RAO had not been able to register the detainees’ application for asylum due to lack of interpretation or other operational difficulties, the Court pronounced that the declaration of “will to apply for international protection” would not be enough to bring the detainees within the protective purview of Art. 46 of L. 4375/2016. However, the decisions in these cases would partly accept the legal remedy, ordering the continuation of detention for maximum 60 additional days, within which the applicant was expected to complete his registration with the Asylum Service. 19 Greek Council of State, Decision No 1592/2012 As mentioned above, between October 2017 and May 2018, also single men from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea, namely men from countries of origin with a recognition rate of above 25%, had been detained in the Lesvos PRDC under the “low profile detention scheme.” 20 Welcome the stranger. Protect the refugee. | 18 18