Out of the spotlight: The rights of foreigners and minorities are still a grey area rejected at the second stage and whose applications are to be subject to a procedural review by the Council of State. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Greece in two cases because of the total absence of legal aid for aliens in cassation proceedings. 22 Even after the introduction of legal aid provisions for aliens through Law 3226/2004, asylum litigation is still exempt because it is an administrative procedure. The absence of legal aid means that some lawyers take up asylum litigation cases pro bono 23 while others charge fees for their services. This latter practice creates distrust of lawyers by officials, who often claim that “lawyers are corrupt and exploit the migrants” – such comments were also made during their interviews with Amnesty International’s delegation. In turn, these claims are used as grounds to arbitrarily reject the evidence or statements provided by lawyers on behalf of their clients and to arbitrarily restrict lawyers’ access to detention centres. Another factor further limiting the ability of applicants to communicate with authorities is due to the failure to fully comprehend the complex legal process involved in the processing of their applications. Amnesty International is not aware of any documents in any language available to the applicants, which outline the process simply and clearly. 1.3.4 “Interruption” of the examination One of the most worrying aspects of the asylum legislation in Greece is the provision which allows the authorities to “interrupt” the examination of asylum claims. Article 2.8 of 22 European Court of Human Rights, Twalib v. Greece (application number 42/1997/826/1032), Judgment, 9 June 1998 and Biba v. Greece (application number 33170/96), Judgment, 26 September 2000. 23 All of the lawyers contacted by Amnesty International in the preparation of this report stated that they work on this basis. Amnesty International 5 October 2005 13 the Presidential Decree (PD) 61/99 states that “in case of arbitrary departure [of the applicant from their stated place of residence], the procedure for the examination of his asylum claim is interrupted following relevant decision issued by the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Order, which is notified to the asylum-seeker, [henceforth] considered as a person ‘of unknown residence’.” The Decree further stipulates that a period of three months is allowed for an appeal to be lodged against the decision of “interruption” and for the decision to be annulled if it is proven that the relocation was due to reasons beyond the applicant’s control. In that case, the asylum application can be examined on its substance. Furthermore, the Article also stipulates that the local representative of UNHCR is to be informed in such a case as to further developments. In the absence of an appeal within the three-month period, the application is automatically rejected. The most commonly stated reason for such “interruption” appears to be a change of residential address, including cases where asylum applicants have travelled to other European destinations and have been returned to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. 24 The Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) expressed concern in October 2004 over the rising number of “interruptions” to the asylum applications of individuals being “returned” to Greece under the Dublin II Regulation. According to the GCR, there has been a sharp increase of such “interruptions” since January 24 Article 3 of the European Union Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (Dublin II Regulation): “Member States shall examine the application of any third country national who applies at the border or in their territory to any one of them for asylum. The application shall be examined by a single Member State which shall be the one which [according to the criteria of the Regulation is deemed] to be responsible.” AI Index: EUR 25/016/2005