governing rejected asylum seekers also states that “particular attention shall be paid to the situation of vulnerable persons”, and more specifically that where vulnerable persons are detained, Member States shall ensure regular monitoring and adequate support taking into account their particular situation, including their health.118 Finally, both EU and Greek law state extremely clearly that minors can only be detained as an absolute last resort and when no alternative, less restrictive measures can be applied, regardless of whether they are asylum seekers or undocumented migrants.119 Unaccompanied minors can only be detained under exceptional circumstances and cannot be held in a “prison accommodation”.120 Since the best interests of the child must also be given priority under Article 23(1) RCD, minors may only be detained as a last resort and only after all conceivable alternatives to detention have been comprehensively examined. Thus, the CJEU considered the indiscriminate detention of minors over 14 years of age in the Hungarian transit zones of Röszke and Tompa as a violation of Art. 11(2) RCD.121 Minors in detention must be given the opportunity to engage in leisure activities, including age-appropriate play and recreational opportunities.122 Unaccompanied minors may only be detained in absolutely exceptional cases, and only separately from adult detainees. Under no circumstances may they be accommodated in ordinary detention facilities.123 As far as possible, they are to be accommodated in facilities that take into account age-appropriate needs. Article48 (3) IPA provides that “families in detention shall be provided with separate accommodation . . . which ensure the protection of private and family life”124. The return laws also guarantee families similar rights.125 Finally, Article 17 of the RD requires states to provide minors in detention with “the possibility to engage in leisure activities, including play and recreational activities appropriate to their age,” and requires that they “shall have, depending on the length of their state, access to education.”126 If these conditions are not met, the detention is unlawful and the person must be set free. b. Under European Human Rights Law The ECHR requires administrative authorities to take into account the specific situation of detained individuals (such as accommodation, hygiene and infrastructure) including any particular vulnerabilities (such as health or age) which may render their detention inappropriate. In Thimothawes v. Belgium, the Court pointed out that general or automatic decisions to detain asylum seekers without any individual appraisal of any special needs could raise an issue under Article 5 (1) ECHR.127 The Court specifically took into consideration the effect of the detention on the applicant’s mental health.128 Similarly, in Rahimi v. Greece, the Court criticised the automatic application of detention and held that the specific circumstances of the applicant being an unaccompanied minor had to be taken into account, thereby 118 Art. 16 (3) Directive 2008/115/EC, Art. 31 (3) L. 3907/2011. 119 Art. 48 (2) L. 4636/2019, Art. 11 (2) Directive 2013/33/EU, Art. 17 (1) Directive 2008/115/EC. 120 Art. 11 (3) Directive 2013/33/EU, Art. 46 (2) L. 4636/2019. 121 CJEU, Judgment of 17/12/2020- C-808/18 - Commission of Hungary, para. 203. 122 Art. 11(2) subpara. 3. 123 Art. 11(3) RCD 124 Art. 48 (3) L. 4636/2019. 125 See e.g., Art. 17 (2) Directive 2008/115/EC. 126 Art. 17 (3) Directive 2008/115/EC. 127 ECtHR, Judgement of 04/04/2017, No. 39061/11, Thimothawes v. Belgium, para 73. 128 Ibid, § 79-80. 17 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS