According to a decision of the 10th Committee of the Appeals Authority dated 13 November 2023 regarding the second instance examination of the asylum case of a vulnerable person from Siera Leone, the vulnerability of the applicant “was not assessed, since on the day of his registration he was subjected to an extremely superficial, non-thorough and faulty medical examination […] Therefore […] at the time of his oral interview, the procedures of first reception had not even been initiated, let alone completed, and specifically his assessment as vulnerable by the competent EODY psychosocial unit. Thus, an essential type (of the procedure) was violated, as the assessment and recognition of vulnerability constitutes a special procedural guarantee in favor of the asylum seeker and a special procedural obligation of the Administration, the violation of which affects the validity of the examination of the application for international protection, making it ineffective and non-specialized […] In view of these, the Committee judges necessary to postpone the issuance of its final judgment so that the applicant can undergo at his own initiative medical examinations and present medical certificates on his state of health during the new scheduled discussion of the case […]”.709 All decisions rejecting minors' claims have troubling similarities. Procedural deficits (absence of a guardian, of appropriate legal representation and legal aid during the process), as well as substantial deficits regarding the determination of refugee status (lack of any reference to the Best Interest of the Child or lack of assessment thereof, obvious lack of knowledge regarding forms of child persecution in general and in countries of origin in particular or the lack of a proper assessment of a minor's credibility), make it almost impossible for unaccompanied minors undergoing the procedure themselves to qualify for international protection. The number of decisions granting refugee status or subsidiary protection to unaccompanied children and the number of in-merit rejection decisions issued throughout 2024 is not available. What is available is only the number of 1 s instance decisions granting refugee status and subsidiary protection to UAMs, which amounted to a total of 986 in the 11 months of 2024 (968 decisions granting refugee status & 18 decisions granting subsidiary protection). 710 2.2. Exemption from special procedures The Asylum Code does not provide for the exemption of vulnerable persons from special procedures as a rule (see Identification).711 Applicants in need of special procedural guarantees are only exempted from the Accelerated Procedure, the Border Procedure, and the Fast-Track Border Procedure where adequate support cannot be provided (see above). 712 Appeals Committees have continued to dismiss alleged infringements of Article 72(3) Asylum Code stemming from the failure of the Asylum Service to exempt the applicant from the fast-track border procedure, on the ground that the appellant has not demonstrated procedural damage (δικονομική βλάβη). The position of the Appeals Committees remains incompatible with the case law of administrative courts, according to which failure to refer such cases to the regular procedure unlawfully circumvents the special protection afforded by law to vulnerable groups. Illustrative of the above is a decision issued by the Supreme Administrative Court of Piraeus (decision Α65/2023) in the case of a vulnerable woman from Iraq, whose decision recognising her vulnerability and referring her to the normal procedure was not taken into consideration by the Asylum authorities, even though it was issued before the issuance of 1st instance decision rejecting her asylum application. According to the Court: 709 710 711 712 Decision IP/268799/2023/13.11.2023 of the 10th Committee of the Appeals Authority on a case legally supported in 2nd instance by the Registry of Lawyers of the Asylum Service in GCR/HIAS/RSA, Δελτίο Νομολογίας Ασύλου 2/2203, December 2023, pp. 25-26, available in Greek at: https://bit.ly/3JuO7y7. MoMA, Information Note A, November 2024, Reception, Asylum & Integration Procedures, p. 14, available here, table 11f. Article 41 (d) Asylum Code provides that the determination of an applicant as vulnerable has the sole effect of triggering immediate care of particular reception, and Article 77 (3) Asylum Code adds ‘the provision of special procedural guarantees’. Article 72(3) Asylum Code. This provision clarifies that, where the applicant falls within the cases where appeals have no automatic suspensive effect, they must have access to interpretation services, legal assistance and at least one week to prepare the appeal (see also Border Procedure and Fast-Track Border Procedure). 160