this case, on aspects of vulnerability), they were both women, they were both single, and, perhaps more importantly, they were both of the same nationality. They could therefore –in an arguably far wiser manner than the multi-divisional system of reception and asylum currently allows– see no distinguishing factors amongst them. Crucially, in their cases, this disillusionment, emanating from the ongoing deficiencies in the systematic provision of qualitative information, may have manifested in the form of complaints and/or some level of frustration; in itself, an issue of concern, when considering the already overburdened psyche with which asylum seekers arrive at the borders. However, it becomes more so concerning when considering that, as has been observed by the European Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA),82 the usual outcome of inadequate information, especially in light of “perceived unfair criteria for prioritisation of asylum claims together with overcrowding and long stays”83 –all of which are to this day characteristic of the Greek system of border reception– is the creation of tensions and/or violence (interethnic or otherwise). Similarly, it results in applicants’ losing their trust in the “official” system of reception-protection and, in turn, once more turning for “help” to smugglers. As aptly put by the Kos, RIC Director, “that is the bet…to make them understand that legal procedures are also the best procedures”.84 A bet, however, which as shall be exemplified in the final chapter of this project, is on many occasions –and perhaps increasingly– lost. Vulnerability Screening/Assessment The importance of vulnerability assessment (i.e. medical and psychosocial screening) lies in its not only being of foremost importance for ensuring that persons in need of more specialized assistance are detected at an early stage, following their arrival, but in its also being the sole means to ensure their full rights are respected. As per both national legislation and the Reception Directive, vulnerable persons are entitled to an expanded set of provisions, so as to ensure that throughout both their reception and asylum procedures they can enjoy their rights on an equal footing with non-vulnerable beneficiaries. For this reason, and not least due to the impossibility of guaranteeing the respect of said rights on the islands –as also acknowledged by the GAS85– vulnerable persons are in principle exempted from the island-based geographical restriction, which in turn constitutes their early detection all the more important. That being said, vulnerability screening has consistently been amongst the major –if not the foremost– issues faced by the Greek system of reception.86 Up to the springsummer of 2017, for instance, as a rule only persons displaying visible vulnerabilities (e.g. physically disabled, pregnant women) would be referred by the RIS to a medical assessment. Persons with less visible vulnerabilities (e.g. mental health problems), on the other hand, would be largely left on their own or, for the most part, referred to a 28