manifestly a minor; in such cases, a decision of the Head of the competent Receiving Authority, following a recommendation by the case-handler, shall suffice.’473 The JMD was an anticipated legal instrument, filling the gap of dedicated age assessment procedures within the context of the Asylum Service and limiting the use of medical examinations to a last resort while prioritising alternative means of assessment. Multiple safeguards prescribed in both the IPA and JMD 9889/2020 regulate the context of the procedure sufficiently, while explicitly providing the possibility of remaining doubts and thus providing the applicant with the benefit of the doubt even after the conclusion of the procedure. However, the lack of an effective guardianship system also hinders the enjoyment of procedural rights guaranteed by national legislation (see Legal Representation of Unaccompanied Children). In practice, the lack of qualified staff within the reception and identification procedure and shortcomings in the age assessment procedure in the RIC undoubtedly have a spill-over effect on the asylum procedure, as the issuance of an age determination act by the RIS precedes the registration of the asylum application with the Asylum Service. While registration of date of birth by the Hellenic Police could be corrected by merely stating the correct date before the Asylum Service, this is not the case for individuals whose age has been wrongly assessed by the RIS. In this case, in order for the personal data e.g. age of the person to be corrected, the original travel document, or identity card should be submitted. Additionally, a birth certificate or family status can be submitted, however, these two documents require an apostille stamp, 474 which in practice is not always possible for an asylum seeker to obtain. In practice though, in a few cases the employees in the RAOs proceed to the correction of the age of the person, based on documents without apostille. Alternatively, according to the law, the caseworker of the Asylum Service can refer the applicant to the age assessment determination procedure in case that reasonable drought exists as to his or her age.475 In this case, referral to the age assessment procedure largely lies at the discretion of the Asylum Service caseworker.476 The number of age assessments conducted within the framework of the asylum procedure in 2022 was not provided. 2. Special procedural guarantees Indicators: Special Procedural Guarantees 1. Are there special procedural arrangements/guarantees for vulnerable people? Yes For certain categories No ❖ If for certain categories, specify which: According to Articles 39(5)(d) and 58(1) IPA the following groups are considered as vulnerable groups: “children; unaccompanied children; direct relatives of victims of shipwrecks (parents, siblings, children, husbands/wives); disabled persons; elderly; pregnant women; single parents with minor children; victims of human trafficking; persons with serious illness; persons with cognitive or mental disability and victims of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence such as victims of female genital mutilation.” 2.1 Adequate support during the interview According to Article 72 (2) Asylum Code, where applicants have been identified as applicants in need of special procedural guarantees, they shall be provided with adequate support in order to be in the position to benefit from the rights and comply with the obligations in the framework of the asylum procedure. The Asylum Code provides examples of forms of adequate support that can be granted in the procedure. 473 474 475 476 Article 84(4) of the Asylum Code Decision of the Director of the Asylum Service No 3153, Gov. Gazette Β’ 310/02.02.2018. Article 80(3) Asylum Code. For a detailed description of the problems related with the age assessment on Lesvos island, see Fenix, A Child’s Best Interests? Rights Violations in the Absence of Presumption of Minority, 13 October 2022, available at : https://bit.ly/3ACqq2t 115