1. Inadequate food and water The nutrition in the PRDC on Kos raises concerns under both Article 3 and 9 ECHR. All participants report that the quality as well as the quantity of food and water is insufficient. Furthermore, six participants state that the food does not meet their medical and/or religious dietary requirements. Equal Rights is not aware of a single case when the specific dietary requirements of a detainee have been taken into account. Article 9 ECHR288 obliges administrative authorities to strike a fair balance between financial and organizational burden and religious beliefs of the detainees. It is highly unlikely that such considerations have been made by administrative authorities in the PRDC Kos and that, according to their assessment, organizational and financial aspects prevail in every single case. Instead, there are valid grounds to believe that such considerations never take place, and that Article 9 ECHR is routinely ignored as applied to nutrition in the detention centre. Regarding Article 3 ECHR and special medical dietary requirements, the ECtHR does not take into account any financial or organizational burdens, but instead requires states to always offer an adequate diet and to protect the detainees’ well-being.289 Efe reports that she is unable to follow the explicit medical recommendations of the doctor in PRDC Kos. Zain stated that, even if he is allergic to specific food items, he is not provided adequate alimentation. Similarly, Florence reports that the food further aggravates her high blood pressure. Hence, the requirements established by the ECtHR are not reflected in our clients’ reports. 2. Recreation Regarding recreation, the circumstances described by our clients are concerning in light of Greek national law290, EU law291, and international human rights law292 standards as all these provisions have to be interpreted in the light of the CPT standards. The CPT has stated that, while every detainee should be allowed one hour of exercise in the open air every day, a broader programme of activities should also be established.293 Furthermore, the ECtHR specified that exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious and, whenever possible, offer shelter from inclement weather.294 The recreation area has to be usable “in a meaningful way”.295 These standards stand in contrast to the reality reported by our clients. The outside areas in the PRDC do not offer any protection from the weather. All participants confirm that the only possibilities for recreation within the detention centre are walking around or being on the phone. Faiza reported that the outdoor area that is accessible to her is only 30 by 35 metres squared and that it is so crowded that there is no possibility to do sports or other activities. These reports are also in line with observations by staff members at Equal Rights who make frequent visits to the PRDC. As Boubacar reports, the lack of recreation facilities has an immense psychological effect on the detainees. 3. Hygiene and Sanitary Facilities The hygiene within the PRDC on Kos is not in line with human rights law standards set out in Greek national, EU, and international human rights law. It is clear from ECtHR jurisprudence that Article 3 ECHR 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 D and E.S. v. United Kingdom, 1990, Commission decision; Jakóbski v. Poland, para 45. Ebedin Abi v. Turkey, paras. 31-54. Art. 47 (2) L. 4636/2019. Art. 10 (2) Directive 2013/33/EU, Art. 16 and Recital 17 Directive 2008/115/EC. Art. 3 ECHR. CPT Standards, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1. ECtHR, Judgement of 10/12/2020, No. 42732/12, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, paras. 150, 152, ECtHR, Judgement of 09/10/2008, No. 62936/00, Moiseyev v. Russia, para. 125. 295 ECtHR, Judgment of 20/10/2011, Nos 5774/10 & 5985/10, Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, para. 78. 62 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS