1.3.1. Quality of interviews and decisions Without underestimating the fact that the recognition rate of the first instance procedure remains high (inmerit decisions), a number of first instance cases to the knowledge of GCR, and inter alia the way the interview was conducted, the assessment of the asylum claims and/or the decisions delivered, corroborates concerns already expressed in relation to a “deterioration in quality at first instance”. 240 Among other, examples of such cases in 2022 include: ❖ The case of a young man from Guinea, living with HIV and a physical disability, whose application was rejected without taking into account the apparent and very grave vulnerabilities when examining whether the applicant would be eligible for subsidiary protection under Article 14(Β) of the Asylum Code. Instead, he was examined solely on whether serious and individual threat to his life or person could occur by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict.241 ❖ The case of a woman from Somalia, an FGM survivor, whose claims of persecution from Al Shabab were dismissed on credibility grounds. In examining whether the applicant was eligible for subsidiary protection, the Asylum Service concluded that while indiscriminate violence was taking place in the Banaadir province and in the capital, Mogadishu, the intensity of the indiscriminate violence was not high enough and there was no significant additional evidence concerning the individual characteristics of the applicant in order for her to be considered at risk of indiscriminate violence in accordance with Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. 242 ❖ The case of a single-parent family from Guinea, whose first instance interview was conducted before the competent authority completed the evaluation of vulnerability indicators. In particular, the main applicant is a survivor of serious forms of gender-based and sexual violence (FGM, genital mutilation & sexual violence) as well as international trafficking, facts that were not taken into account in examining whether the applicant is eligible for international protection. 243 ❖ Cases of asylum seekers - from a group of 92 asylum seekers in Evros - whose applications were rejected at first instance as inadmissible under the safe third country concept vis-a vis Türkiye, while the rejection decisions244 themselves acknowledge that they had been subjected to degrading treatment by the Turkish authorities. In fact, regarding the rescue of this group by the Greek authorities, the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum had issued a statement and relevant statements were made also by the Minister, according to which the group had been abandoned by the Turkish authorities in Evros, the people had been subjected to degrading treatment in Türkiye and that this incident would be reported to the UN.245 1.3.2. Interpretation The law envisages that interpretation is provided to the applicants for making their application, submitting their case to the competent authorities, and for conducting their interview at the first and second instance.246 In accordance with an amendment of the IPA in May 2020 as well as the codification of the relevant legislation in the Asylum Code, in case that interpretation in the language of the choice of the applicant is proven to be unavailable, interpretation is provided in the official language of the country of origin or in a language that the applicant may reasonably be supposed to understand. 247 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 AIDA, Report on Greece, 2019 Update, 58-59. Decision in file with the author. Decision in file with the author. Decision in file with the author. Decision in file with the author. Η Ναυτεμπορική, «Ν. Μηταράκης: Στέλνουμε στον ΟΗΕ το περιστατικό με τους 92 γυμνούς πρόσφυγες στον Έβρο», 17-10-2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3P0vWEy. Article 77(3) IPA and 82(3) ASYLUM CODE. Article 69(3) IPA, as amended by L. 4686/2020 and 74(3) ASYLUM CODE. 59