months;58 six months on top of any Pre-RIC detention time they might have been forced to endure. Geographical restriction Notwithstanding the clear-cut detention cases underlined above, in terms of freedom of movement, the major issue for most “irregular” newcomers arriving at the Greek borders still remains their geographical restriction on the islands; a restriction inextricably tied to the Statement’s implementation that led to the radical alteration of the RICs’ “physiology”. RICs (or “hotspots”), specifically, were first envisioned as far back as May 2015 and the European Agenda on Migration as a means ‘to swiftly identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants’.59 Therefore at the level of their conceptualization they were never meant to be anything more than short-term, transit facilities, aimed at filtering between persons in need of international protection and those arriving in Europe for other reasons (e.g. “survival migrants”).60 Indeed, this was further reflected at the level of their implementation, –at least, in Greece– as suffice to say that on the 20th of March 2016 none of the five “hotspots” were fully operational, with that of Kos being the furthest away from its full operationalization (June 2016). 61 Accordingly, when the Statement was brought into force, the RICs were barely able to fulfill their original aim, let alone undertake the accommodation of the thousands of asylum seekers that got trapped on the islands in its direct aftermath, or the thousands more that would thereafter arrive –even if in much diminished numbers.62 Despite this, in the aftermath of the EU-Turkey Statement, and following a short period (up to the end of April-beginning of May 2016) during which they functioned as closed detention centers, the island RICs were transformed into a type of hybrid, open-forsome, closed-for-others, facilities, charged simultaneously with the reception, accommodation, and detention of inbound refugees and asylum seekers.63 More so, since the Statement’s implementation the “restriction curb” has only spiraled upwards, leading to the consolidation of a trend (less liberty, more deterrence) which has only negatively impacted the lives of refugees and asylum seekers –not least, since it created the conditions of overcrowding on the islands, with results that will be examined in subsequent chapters. In terms of consequences, for most newcomers this has meant the imposition of an initial period of detention/restriction of freedom within the RIC (up to 25 days), which is then followed by the imposition of a limitation of their freedom of movement on the islands throughout the duration of the examination of their (asylum) claim. Furthermore, and though vulnerable asylum seekers would at first, following assessment of their vulnerability, be exempted from this indefinite confinement, in December 2016 and reportedly following external pressures, they were also added to the list of stranded persons, not being allowed to leave the islands up to the completion of their asylum interview.64 Since then, and as a rule, on top of the already indiscriminate restriction of freedom inside the RIC (up to 25 days) to which asylum seekers have been subjected, all –reportedly with the exception of vulnerable Syrian applicants65– have similarly and 20