duration of detention, as well as of the possibility to challenge the legality and arbitrariness of such decision.”18 Additionally, the “low profile” detainees´ access to legal representation, in order to exercise their right to be heard in the context of the automatic judicial review or to pursue the “objections against detention” (Art.46(5), Art.46(6) and Art. 46(7) of L. 4375/2016), in order to challenge their detention order, is extremely limited. The detainees do not have the financial means to cover the costs of legal representation themselves. Similarly, they do not have access to the free legal assistance provided by Law 3226/2004, as provided for in Art. 46, par. 7 of Law 4375/2016, due to the inability to produce the necessary supporting documents (e.g. copies of tax declarations, tax clearance notes, statement of assets, Tax ID, social welfare certificates, or affidavits). Additionally, the application for free legal aid under Law 3226/2004 would already necessitate the intervention of a lawyer, as the detainees are unable, due to their detention, to approach the competent authorities. In any event, the inmates do not receive any information regarding avenues to access legal assistance in order to challenge their detention order. Ineffective judicial review of the detention orders The judicial practice in relation to the “low profile detention scheme” raises serious concerns as regards the effectiveness of the judicial review of the detention orders. The observations included in this section are based on the analysis of 17 cases of “low profile” asylum seekers, whose detention was challenged by HIAS Greece lawyers before the Administrative Court of Mytilene, Lesvos. The legal remedy lodged in these cases is called “objections against detention” and the ensuing decision cannot be challenged before a Court of a higher instance. HIAS Greece’s argument that the detention was arbitrary because the detainees had already applied for asylum while at liberty (Art. 46(2) of L. 4375/2016) has never been addressed by the Court. Furthermore, the Court has never addressed whether the conditions of detention in the Lesvos PRDC amount to ill-treatment. Our contention that the detainees were not informed about the grounds of their detention in a language they understand has been addressed in only one decision. The Court’s decision proceeded to reject our argument, holding that the Greek authorities are not obliged to inform 18 Revised Deliberation No. 5 on deprivation of liberty of migrants. UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, February 2018, para. 33, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/RevisedDeliberation_AdvanceEditedVersion.pdf Welcome the stranger. Protect the refugee. | 17 17