In addition, 63% respondents indicated that they had applied for asylum while in detention, yet were not released upon doing so and continued to have their detention prolonged. This would indicate that those detained in view of removal due to lack of documentation, were subsequently detained as applicants on new grounds.The high frequency of these cases raises strong doubts regarding the review for the grounds of detention and the legal justification provided for its extension. Instead, it indicates that third country nationals in PRDCs have their detention systematically extended despite their application for international protection and the newly required sufficient reasoning. In the case A. A. v. Greece, [196] the applicant was forced to remain in detention following the filing of his asylum application despite the suspension of the procedure for his return. The ECtHR found that the period of detention and its extension following the registration of the asylum application was not justified with a sufficient reason, which did not make the detention necessary for the purpose pursued.[197] This case reiterates that these practices do not lie in accordance with the principles of absolute necessity, as per EU legislation and Greek law,[198] and violates the right to liberty without sufficiently justified legal means.[199] Finally, unjustified delays, due to internal systems and lack of communication amongst authorities, also led to several respondents waiting just to lodge their application. Yet according to Article 50(5) of Greek law 4939/2022, applicants should only be held in detention for as long as is absolutely necessary, and in particular, ‘delays in administrative procedures that cannot be attributed to the applicant shall not justify a continuation of detention’. In addition, Article 69(7)[200] states that detainees who wish to lodge an application for international protection should be provided with an appointment to lodge the application no later than ten working days after their verbal expression of willingness. Yet in practice, respondents were detained for several months while they waited for their application to be lodged. Rather than their expression of willingness being prioritised, respondents described situations whereby procedures were treated with a general lack of urgency and without follow up or information regarding their status. These systemic delays, as well as the ambiguous and flexible legal grounds for detaining an applicant of international protection, creates a conducive environment for arbitrariness leading to violations of Article 5(4) ECHR. I don’t know the exact reason but they told me that I entered this land illegally so I will be taken to a closed camp.The only thing they told us is that we are dangerous in their society. We had a space where we prayed for Muslim people and one guy was understanding the Greek language. I used to hear this word all the time when I asked and he told me what that word means. Kíndynos [danger] is the word. Walid , Paranestii My brother and I went to the officers there saying like please write my name down. I want to apply for asylum. Then they said, it's all good. You come tomorrow, we'll take it. And that was the same thing every day except the weekends because you can't apply for asylum on the weekend, so that was the case for like 4 months and I was really frustrated and exhausted and like mentally really tired. Then I just paid a lawyer. I gave him 1.200 euros and when the lawyer went, he said your name was never taken to the office, that's why you spent four months here. That's why you are here for like four months. So when the lawyer went, he went and helped me to apply for asylum. So the officers never took my name to the list – the ones who wanted to apply for asylum. OK, so is it this is, this is why I am really sad and it was truly hard for me because I felt like I spent four months for nothing, for no reason. Azhar, Amygdaleza 50