THE DUBLIN II TRAP TRANSFERS OF ASYLUM-SEEKERS TO GREECE 29 from a decision-making to an advisory role. In practice this means that those who applied for asylum under the old system will still have the right to appeal when they receive their rejection decisions.103 The Advisory Committees had not been established as of February 2010. Amnesty International is very concerned about the impact of the changes introduced in July 2009. Removing the right to an effective appeal fundamentally undermines the fairness of the asylum procedure. It creates a real risk that incorrect decisions will be left unchecked and the principle of non-refoulement breached. It deprives asylum-seekers of their right to an effective remedy as guaranteed under Article 13 of the ECHR (as well as relevant case-law) and Article 39 of the Asylum Procedures Directive. UNHCR has also expressed its concerns about PD 81/2009, stating that it would “not participate in the new asylum procedure unless structural changes are made”.104 A., an alleged Christian Iranian asylum-seeker, who was returned to Greece in late 2009 from Switzerland, had applied for asylum in Greece under the old system and was given a pink card. He told Amnesty International representatives that if he goes back to Iran he will be killed because he has converted to Christianity. When he was returned to Greece under Dublin II, he was given the decision rejecting his asylum at the airport in Greek. This stated that he had 30 days105 within which to lodge his appeal. A. was not given any explanation of this notice in a language that he understands. The meaning of the notice was explained to him by Amnesty International representatives just a few days before the deadline expired. He stated that he had no faith in the Greek system and would prefer not to lodge an appeal. Amnesty International considers that Greek asylum procedures do not meet the relevant standards under international refugee and human rights law. As illustrated above, the lack of access to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the inadequacy of refugee status determination (including in Dublin II cases), the obstacles impacting on the ability of asylum-seekers to register and to appeal, rendering them at times illegally in the country and at risk of deportation, the abolition of a substantive appeal and the absence of effective legal advice and interpreters in the asylum procedure give rise to a serious risk of refoulement. Index: EUR 25/001/2010 Amnesty International March 2010