In Kos, according to GCR’s field experience, the lack of sufficient medical personnel was reflected on this procedure as well in the first half of 2024. During the reporting period, no other major challenges have been noted regarding the age assessment procedure. In the mainland RICs of Diavata and Malakasa, the Medical and Psychosocial Support Unit was operated by EODY until the first half of 2024. There was, subsequently, a period with effective service provision until early autumn 2024 when ‘IPPOKRATIS’ medical and psychosocial personnel was in place to conduct the age assessment procedures. However, given the lack of interpretation services, respective procedures were affected, causing delays in some cases.713 As mentioned above, in practice, the age assessment of unaccompanied children is an extremely challenging process as the procedure is not followed in a significant number of cases, inter alia, due to the lack of qualified staff. In this regard, it must be noted that GCR provided legal aid for three cases of unaccompanied children in 2023, in all of which the RIS authority accepted the child’s appeal against the age assessment decision on the grounds that lack of staff does not constitute legal justification for skipping the second step stipulated in law (see above). The decision on the appeal annulled the initial age assessment as “the psychosocial assessment included in the file […] does not reflect a reason to doubt the age assessment result, apart from 'impossibility of determining age due to lack of staff'. [Therefore] the decision to refer [the child] to the third stage of medical examination took place without adequate reasoning of the authority’s inability to reach a conclusion at the second stage of the psychosocial assessment”.714 Concerning age assessment in the asylum procedure, Article 80(3) Asylum Code provides for procedural safeguards and refers explicitly to ‘applicable regulatory procedures’, i.e., JMD 9889/2020. According to the aforementioned provision, ‘when such a referral for age determination examinations is considered necessary and throughout this procedure, attention shall be given to the respect of gender-related special characteristics and of cultural particularities’. The provision also sets out guarantees during the procedure: 1. A guardian for the child is appointed who shall undertake all necessary action in order to protect the rights and the best interests of the child, throughout the age determination procedure; 2. Unaccompanied children are informed prior to the examination of their application and in a language which they understand, of the possibility and the procedures to determine their age, of the methods used, therefore, the possible consequences of the results of the above-mentioned age determination procedures for the examination of the application for international protection, as well as the consequences of their refusal to undergo this examination; 3. Unaccompanied children or their guardians consent to carry out the procedure for the determination of the age of the children concerned; 4. The decision to reject an application of an unaccompanied child who refused to undergo this age determination procedure shall not be based solely on that refusal; and 5. Until the completion of the age determination procedure, the person who claims to be a minor shall be treated as such. The law also states that ‘the year of birth can be modified after the age determination procedure under Article 80, unless during the interview it appears that the applicant who is registered as an adult is 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.’715 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.716 The above is corroborated by the World Medical Association (WMA) which clarifies 713 714 715 716 Greek Ombudsperson, The Challenge of Migratory Flows and Refugee Protection Reception Conditions and Procedures, April 2024, available in English and Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/546kmb76, p. 151. See GCR, HIAS, RSA, Greek Asylum Case Law Report (Δελτίο Νομολογίας Ασύλου in Greek) issue 2, 2023, available in Greek at: https://tinyurl.com/mp8s6jk6 , pp. 26-27. Article 84(4) of the Asylum Code. See also GCR, Without papers, there’s no life: Legal barriers in access to protection for unaccompanied children in Greece, July 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/y6fb7zh5 ,p. 7. 143