nationals, were deemed “inadmissible” (Afghanistan: 1.113,Bangladesh: 345, Pakistan: 626, Somalia: 307, Syria: 305).599 Decisions of the Appeals Committees rejecting the case as inadmissible follow the line of reasoning of the Asylum Service to a great extent. Appeals Committees have continued to refrain from taking into consideration up-to-date, reliable sources of information concerning risks of inhuman or degrading treatment and refoulement facing individuals in Türkiye.600 Even where reliable reports on risks of noncompliance by Türkiye with the principle of non-refoulement are cited in decisions, Committees have not engaged with available evidence in their legal analysis of the applicability of the safety criteria of the “safe third country” concept and the risks of exposure of individuals to ill-treatment.601 Second instance decisions rely on the information provided by the letters of the Turkish authorities, considered as diplomatic assurances “of particular evidentiary value”, on the relevant legal framework of Türkiye, without taking into consideration any amendment or its application in practice and on a selective use of available sources, so as to conclude in a stereotypical way that the safety criteria are fulfilled. In a number of decisions issued in 2021, the Appeals Committees cited the aforementioned letters and selected provisions of Turkish legislation as reliable evidence of compliance by Türkiye with the principle of nonrefoulement.602 In addition, Appeals Committee decisions in 2021 have dismissed alleged risks of refoulement on the ground that the evidence put forward by the appellants did not point to “structural problems” (δομικού χαρακτήρα), to “systematic violations” (συστηματικές παραβιάσεις) or to “mass refoulement” (μαζικές επαναπροωθήσεις) of Syrian refugees from Türkiye.603 To the knowledge of GCR, there have been certain appeals of Syrians and Afghans which have been considered as admissible at second instance. 604. For example, in a case of a Syrian single man, his subsequent application was deemed admissible, as, the fact that a long period of time has elapsed since the rejection of his application as inadmissible, during which his readmission to Türkiye has not been completed, was considered to be a new and substantial element. Furthermore, the Appeals Committee took into consideration the information available, pursuant to which there is no imminent change in Türkiye's position and it therefore decided that it must be accepted that the relevant application cannot be dismissed as inadmissible.605 Few appeals of Syrians who used to reside in Syrian areas were Türkiye has military activity have been considered admissible due to the fact that the condition of ‘connection’ could not be fulfilled given the violent military intervention of Türkiye in their region of origin. Also, GCR is aware of a second instance decision which considered the appeal of a Syrian who remained in Türkiye for the short period of 15 days as admissible, on the ground that transit per se shall not be conceived in itself sufficient or significant connection with the country. 2.2 Connection criteria Article 91(1)(f) of the Asylum Code requires there to be a connection between the applicant and the “safe third country”, which would make return thereto reasonable. Whereas no further guidance was laid down 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 MoMA, Reply of the Ministry to the Greek Parliament, 156079/2023, 16 March 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/3JIy0y6, 12. See e.g. 6th Appeals Committee, Decision 25449/2019, 20 January 2020; 6 th Appeals Committee, Decision 2411/2019, 28 February 2020; 17th Appeals Committee, Decision 3576/2020, 10 March 2020, para 12; 13 th Appeals Committee, Decision 2727/2020, 9 April 2020; 14 th Appeals Committee, Decision 4334/2020, 9 April 2020. See e.g. 6th Appeals Committee, Decision 2411/2019, 28 February 2020, paras 11, 14 and 15; 13 th Appeals Committee, Decision 2727/2020, 9 April 2020, para 19; 6 th Appeals Committee, Decision 5892/2020, 27 May 2020, paras 12 and 15. 13th Appeals Committee, Decision 2727/2020, 9 April 2020, para 19; 16 th Appeals Committee, Decision 19219/2019, 15 May 2020, para 16. 5th Appeals Committee, Decision 202946, 25 August 2021, 5 th Appeal Committee, 202789/2021, 25 August 2021. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), HIAS Greece and RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report, 1/2021, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3DmHWs9, Greek Asylum Case Law Report 1/2022, June 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3oLmN7P, Greek Asylum Case Law Report 2/2022, December 2022, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3Ldr3EB. 19th Appeals Committee, Decision 761318, 19 December 2022. 136