procedural practices in the Kos PRDC raise the question as to whether any person in the PRDC is legally detained, regardless of whether they are an asylum seeker or have received a final rejection. Additionally, although the police have generally granted us access to meet with clients in the PRDC, that access is not unhindered and therefore does not always comply with the law. Specifically, the requirement laid out in Article 10 APD that lawyers must be able to meet clients in a manner that respects their confidentiality is routinely not met. Finally, even where basic procedural safeguards are met, it has become clear to us that detention can have a significant negative impact on a person’s asylum claim. Firstly, as demonstrated throughout this report, the experience of being in detention is traumatising – it strips people of their liberty and dignity, puts them at risk of developing medical problems, and disconnects them from their lawyers, families, and community support systems. In our experience, detained clients regularly go into their interview unprepared, anxious, and with a sense of hopelessness about their situation. Second, the lack of information and the prevalence of misinformation in the PRDC creates profound anxiety and confusion among persons detained there, often leading them to make decisions that negatively impact their case. For example, the misinformation provided to people upon a first rejection – particularly with respect to legal services – often results in people submitting appeals on their own rather than through a lawyer. Third, it is extraordinarily difficult for people in detention to collect the necessary evidence to support their asylum claim, particularly any documents related to any medical condition. b. The Right to an Effective Remedy As documented above, the procedures for people detained in the PRDC lack numerous procedural safeguards, that also raise issues regarding people’s right to an effective remedy. In particular, people in the PRDC lack an effective remedy with respect to their detention. Detention orders are issued automatically and contain no individualised or personal assessment, making it impossible for people to know or understand the underlying reasoning for their detention in order to challenge it. At the same time, the lack of reasoning included in template-like detention orders makes it difficult for courts to adequately review a person’s detention. Further, even if people wanted to challenge their detention order, the police provide them with neither a written nor oral translation of the order. Thus, it is practically impossible for people to challenge their detention order because they cannot possibly know why they are detained in the first place. In this respect, Greece is quite clearly failing to meet its duty under the EU principle of good administration. Moreover, the sole legal remedy available to people detained at the PRDC is itself not an effective remedy. First, decisions from the administrative court in Rhodes are often poorly reasoned and there is no way to appeal a negative decision. Further the logistical and procedural hurdles people must overcome to file objections exclude people from filing a remedy without a lawyer. For example, the police do not inform people about their right to object to their detention, detention orders are not provided in a language people can understand, and the objections must be filed in person at the administrative court in Rhodes. Thus, although the remedy exists factually, it does not exist for the vast majority of people detained in the PRDC in practice. 32 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS