FORGOTTEN Administratively detained irregular migrants and asylum seekers “The concept of “risk of absconding” is distinct from that of “risk to public policy”. The concept of “risk to public policy” presupposes the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. A Member State cannot deem a third-country national as posing a risk to public policy on the sole ground that that national is suspected, or has been criminally convicted, of an act punishable as a criminal offence under national law. Other factors, such as the nature and seriousness of that act, the time which has elapsed since it was committed and any matter which relates to the reliability of the suspicion that the third-country national concerned committed the alleged criminal offence is also relevant for a case-by-case assessment which has to be carried out in any case” .26 According to the Greek Ombudsman (document No.175063/49247, dated 19.11.2013): “The Hellenic Police seems to be indifferent to the specific characteristics of each category of third country nationals and the existing legal grounds for their differential treatment. This apparently results in return decisions which lack bearing in law {…} and include in their reasoning both laws 3386/2005 and 3907/2011. This serves the purpose of imposing detention to all the above categories collectively, on the legal basis of public order (despite the fact that the protection of public order is not included in the legal conditions for using article 30 of law 3907/2011 to impose detention) in a way that is far from corresponding to precise and sufficient reasoning. The competent Police authorities invoke –in order to justify the imposition of detention– either past criminal court proceedings or past sentences to deprivation of liberty, which however have been suspended, without taking into consideration that only judicial authorities are competent for the imposition of a sentence for deprivation of liberty or of restrictive measures in the context of criminal procedures, while administrative detention is imposed in the context of the execution of a return decision with the sole purpose of the enforcement of the alien’s removal”. 26 Ibid, page 37-38. 46