Moreover, providing an individualised and reasoned order is a vital precondition before a state can deprive a person of their liberty. This is true regardless of whether the person is detained as an asylum seeker or a migrant subject to a return order. Article 8 (2) RCD states that detention can only be ordered “on the basis of an individual assessment” and where it proves necessary.158 These conditions must be regulated by law and must be examined and justified in writing in each individual case. The decision, which is incumbent upon an administrative authority or a court, must comprehensively explain the factual and legal situation on which the detention is based.159 The RD similarly requires Member States to apply detention only on a case-by-case basis and that detention may only be ordered “in writing and with reasons being given in fact and law.”160 European human rights law provides for similar rights. Article 5(2) in conjunction with Article (3) ECHR provides for a case-by-case examination and the possibility for appeal in order to administer a an appealable detention order in the event of deprivation of liberty. As discussed earlier in this report, under Greek asylum law authorities can only detain someone by way of exception, and only after conducting an individualised assessment.161 Article 46 (2) IPA goes on to list several factors that the authorities must consider before imposing detention, including “the lack of adequate detention facilities, the difficulties in ensuring decent living conditions for detainees, and the vulnerability of the applicants”162. Article 46(4) requires the authorities to issue a detention decision only “following an individual assessment” and that the decisions “shall be thoroughly justified”163. Similarly, Article 30 (2) Law 3907/2011, which has not been amended, governing returns, establishes that “the detention order shall contain the reasons in law and fact . . . and shall be issued in written form”164. Similar rights are also guaranteed under the ECHR. Article 5 (2) establishes that “[e]veryone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him”165. Under this paragraph it is therefore “decisive” that asylum seekers “be informed, in simple language [emphasis added] accessible to [them], of the legal and factual [emphasis added] reasons of his deprivation of liberty”166. The ECtHR has found violations of Article 5 (2) even in cases where the applicants are provided some general, limited information,167 and has suggested that it would find a violation in cases where decisions rely on stereotypical and brief language.168 The right to information is also critically linked to Article 5 (4) ECHR – establishing a right to a judicial remedy because people cannot challenge their detention without first understanding the reasons for it. For this reason, the ECtHR held in Khlaifa and Others v. Italy that the authorities had violated the applicants’ rights under Article 5 (4) because they had failed to provide 158 Art. 8 (2) Directive 2013/33/EU. 159 See CJEU, Judgment of 14/05/2020 - C-924/19 PPU and C-925/19 PPU - FMS et al, para. 257 et seq. See also Edwards, Back to Basics: The Right to Liberty and Security of Person and ‘Alternatives to Detention’ of Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, Stateless Persons and Other Migrants, UN Doc. PPLA/2011/01.Rev.1, April 2011, available at: https://bit.ly/3aVmcXe and UNHCR, Detention Guidelines - Guidelines on Applicable Criteria and Standards Concerning the Detention of Asylum Seekers and Alternatives to Detention, 2012, available at: https://bit.ly/3dp2UL7. 160 Art. 15 (1) and Art. 15 (2) Directive 2008/115/EC. 161 Art. 46(2) L. 4636/2019. 162 Art. 46 (2) L. 4636/2019. 163 Art. 46 (4) L. 4636/2019. 164 Art. 30 (2) L. 3907/2011. 165 Art. 5 (2) ECHR. 166 Juan Jose Ruiz Ramos, The right to liberty of asylum seekers and the European Court of Human Rights: case law analysis in the aftermath of the 2015 refugee crisis, Universidad de Granada (2019), 85. 167 ECtHR, Judgement of 25/01/2018, No. 22696/16, J.R. and Others v. Greece, para 121. 168 ECtHR, Judgement of 04/04/2017, No. 39061/11, Thimothawes v. Belgium, para 77. In this case the applicants did not invoke Art. 5 (2). 23 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS