As a rule, and upon newcomers’ transfer to the RICs, the RIS undertakes their initial briefing on rights and obligations, which is then followed-up by a second information session conducted by UNHCR’s field-based teams (usually 10-15 minutes group sessions). A gap still persists during weekdays, since the unavailability of interpreters means that information can only be provided on Mondays, yet in itself this did not reportedly create any significant issues.73 Despite this standardization of practices, however, information provision at the borders still remains highly problematic throughout all process and procedures that asylum seekers undergo for the duration of their RICbased accommodation. For starters, and especially on the islands, the timing under which information provision takes place has been reported as posing a direct impediment to effective understanding and assimilation.74 That is, newcomers are frequently provided with information at too short intervals following their arrival (which, it should be reminded, was preceded by their previously having been literally rescued at sea), at a time when they are usually too confused and/or distressed to understand what is being said. Secondly, conditions of overpopulation –especially in Lesvos– further impede effective communication. Thus at the Moria, RIC, which provides an indication for the situation in Chios and Samos, environmental parameters (overcrowding, constant shouts etc.), coupled with the RIS’s ever overstretched capacity, adversely affect the quality of information. As such, and as per GCR’s observations at the point of our visit in Lesvos (11-15 December 2017), the information provided to newcomers seemed to revolve around the provision of directions as to where (i.e. in which container) they would have to go in order to be identified, fingerprinted and registered, with the added “touch” of their being advised to be honest throughout the process. Thirdly, based on GCR’s observations in Evros, the language employed to inform beneficiaries about (especially) their rights, has at times been too fast-paced, specialized and/or technical in nature, seemingly not taking into account beneficiaries’ levels of education, ages or broader sociopolitical backgrounds. More importantly, the information provided has tended to be solely factual (e.g. “your application has been rejected”), instead of explanatory, thus failing to accomplish the desired outcome, with adverse effects on the most vulnerable. “They don’t explain to them [i.e. minor applicants] why their [asylum] application was rejected…[they just] give them a document written in Greek…stating their rights and obligations…it is the same with adults…but at least adults can ask questions…minors are generally more reserved [to do so].”75 Frequent changes in administrative procedures further complicate the matter as, indeed, “depending on when [someone arrives, they] undergo a different procedure”.76 And the list could go on, including the lack and/or scarcity of interpretation in some languages (mostly African-based), the overstretched capacity of available interpreters and significant gaps in the availability of intercultural mediators. Most crucially, however, 26