that diagnosis and treatment in prisons, including prison hospitals, are prompt and appropriate. 280 The Court also held that states must ensure that, where required by the prisoner’s state of health, monitoring takes place at regular intervals and includes a comprehensive treatment strategy aimed at achieving the prisoner’s recovery or at least preventing his or her condition from worsening.281 Because the authorities could not provide a certain treatment, the detention was found to be in violation of Article 3 ECHR.282 The case-law shows that, while a single answer cannot be given, individual circumstances must be considered when determining whether detention conditions violate human rights. When considering individual circumstances, as a matter of course, a sufficient vulnerability assessment must be conducted.283 For vulnerable persons, a violation of human rights is, hence, much more likely. C. Living Conditions in Kos PRDC With the legal context in mind, this subsection documents asylum seekers’ living conditions in Kos PRDC. Many of the conditions reported below quite clearly violate the legal preconditions laid out above, something explored more in depth in the conclusion to this section. However, even where certain facts do not necessarily constitute a breach of law, we have decided to include them because, taken together, all the conditions described below contribute to a sense of hopelessness, degradation, and insecurity among migrants detained at the PRDC. When asked to comment on any concerns they might have about the conditions in the PRDC, UNHCR reported that “as per communication with detainees and other actors, UNHCR notes that systemic problems observed in the past continue to be prevalent. UNHCR notes the limited provision of medical and psychosocial services for detainees and the poor quality and nutritional value of the food provided.” The below findings are primarily based on individual testimonies provided during in-depth interviews and our everyday work. From these, we have identified 10 themes that were frequently mentioned, and which we outline below. 1. Use of police detention Some participants reported being held in police detention for short periods of time prior to their detention in the PRDC. Zain told us that he was held in police custody for four to five days on the island where he was arrested before his transfer to Kos. After his transfer, he was immediately taken to the police station in Kos Town for some hours, before being taken to the PRDC. Joud reported being held in police detention overnight, explaining he was “…in a small room that was like a prison, it was really dark, and they took my phone. I stayed there for one day and at 3 am they came to investigate me and they fingerprinted me and then they transferred me from the police station to the detention [the PRDC] after that”. Ismail reported that the conditions in Kos police station, where he was also held overnight, were poor, stating: “I don’t have any words to describe it, it’s better to have a look to see what it looks [like]. Actually, it’s a small room and it [had] a toilet inside it…it was a bad condition. That’s the only thing that I can say about it”. He further reported that the cell was overcrowded: he shared the room with several men, three of whom were there when he arrived, and several others who were arrested at the same time as him. 280 281 282 283 ECtHR, Judgement of 24/03/2016, No. 4875/09, Sakir v. Greece, para. 52. Ibid. Ibid at para 58. In detail on case-by-case examination Markard/Nestler/Vogt/Ziebritzki: No State of Exception at the EU External Borders, March 2020, p. 17 et seq, available at: https://bit.ly/32W3BGg. 44 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS