unnecessarily exhaustive interviews and conduct preventing lawyers from asking questions at the end of the interview continue to be reported.551 In 2023, legal aid actors continued to observe issues concerning the quality of the interviews as well as the procedural fairness of how they are conducted, mainly those conducted by the Greek Asylum Service. Specifically, concerns were raised about the use of unsuitable communication methods and questions related to past experience of harm and/or persecution which included closed questions impeding a proper follow-up, no opportunity to explain the case in the applicant’s own words, failure to consider factors that are likely to distort the applicant’s ability to express him or herself properly (such as mental health issues or prior trauma and/or illiteracy), lack of clarification with regard to vague or ambiguous concepts mentioned by the interviewer, potential inconsistencies or misunderstandings regarding critical aspects of the case that could lead to confusion and/or the inability of the applicant to express him or herself effectively, and more generally, violations of the right to be heard. Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the use of unsuitable methods and questions, including unfriendly interview environment for a) the applicants’ age, in cases of alleged minors, and more generally, violations of the right to a child-friendly environment and procedure, b) gender-based violence (GBV) survivors552, and c) LGBTQI+ persons.553 In general, no individualised assessment of the specific profile and circumstances of the asylum applicant or gender-sensitive assessment was taking place. Namely, results of a survey on treatment of LGBTQI+ asylum seekers in Greece within the context of the asylum procedure, based on interviews conducted in 2023, revealed use of prohibited and discriminatory questioning, questions related to sexual practice and questions based on stereotypical notions during the asylum interview by the caseworkers, and a lack of caseworkers’ competence in assessing LGBTQI+ claims and failure to align with the DSSH (Difference, Shame, Stigma, Harm) model provided by the EUAA.554 Indicatively, see the reasoning of a negative decision issued by Kos RAO, for an asylum applicant with, inter alia, a homosexuality claim:555 “For instance, the applicant could not elaborate on the process and the way in which he became aware of his sexual orientation, saying that this happened after an incident of rape when he was [x - minor] years old. […] The applicant gives almost no information about this [rape] incident. When next asked how he felt about his realization of his sexual orientation, he was content to answer that he accepted it while others did not. One would expect that since it was an internal process, and indeed something that would cause him trouble in his own country, he would be able to give more details about how he experienced it and his feelings and even give more information about how he became aware of it. Finally, when asked whether he knew about LGBTI organizations in his country or about the law on homosexuality in his country, the applicant replied negatively. One would expect him to be aware of such organizations or even the law since he stated that from X to X he became aware of his sexual orientation and externalized his feelings, a reason which played a decisive role in the applicant's decision to leave the country. In a more general assessment, these allegations of the applicant are considered to be incoherent and general and as a result, the Service finds that the internal credibility of the above allegation has not been established.” The above reasoning of the first instance negative decision is indicative of the problematic, judgmental and non-sensitive approach and credibility assessment of the Asylum Service with regard to LGBTQI persons and GBV survivors. Moreover, in 2023, a significant number of asylum applicants continued to report that, during their interview, they were not granted sufficient time and, as a result, their asylum claims were not examined thoroughly. An additional issue relates to the fact that the caseworkers do not follow a standard procedure on the examination of allegations of pushbacks when such are mentioned during the asylum interview. According to lawyers, in certain cases the caseworkers disregard allegations, claiming that they are not 551 552 553 554 555 See AIDA, Country Report Greece, 2021 Update, p. 100, https://bit.ly/3IAjhVm. See Fenix, A GENDERED GAZE ON MIGRATION: Report on sexual and gender-based violence in the context of the Greek asylum policy on Lesvos, February 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mk7kmp7t. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, LGBTQI+ Asylum Seekers in Greece, 8 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5hfsamd5. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, ibid. The asylum applicant received legal aid by GCR. 119