(9,230). This is due to the fact that, following the new Joint Ministerial Decision designating Türkiye as a safe third country for applicants from five of the most common countries of origin in Greece, the drafting of concluding remarks by EUAA caseworkers is no longer required for a large share of cases, that is those examined on admissibility.423 Particularly, the RAOs had no consistent practice regarding the examination of allegations of pushbacks during the asylum interview and it is unknown if the Asylum Service collects these transcripts. The caseworkers had discretion as to whether to devote time during the interview and ask further questions regarding the reported “pushback” incident by the asylum applicant. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the newly appointed EUAA Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO) has any intention to develop a system to collect asylum applicants’ testimonies on alleged pushbacks. Additionally, it remains unclear how the EUAA case workers manage any information on criminal acts and violation of EU and international law in EU external borders that come into their possession in the exercise of their duties and if the EUAA FRO will be willing to create a relevant reporting mechanism/ procedure. In an unknown number of cases, following internal SOPs of the Asylum Service, interviews on admissibility and on their merits have been conducted on the same day (the one after the other) by RAOs on the islands, when admissibility criteria were “obvious” (e.g. when a period of more than one year had elapsed since their transit via the third country). Additionally, certain interviews were even conducted by case workers of RAOs of other islands. In a number of cases, decisions have been issued by different RAOs and/or AAUs from those where the interviews have been conducted, operating supportively to the latter. In Lesvos, the applicants continued to receive an invitation for their interview, according to which they needed to present themselves before the RAO at the day of their interview either at 6:30 or at 7:30 in the morning, without any information regarding the actual time that their interview was scheduled. In practice, this meant that there were many applicants that appeared before the RAO’s gate at 6:30 only to start their interviews at 12:00 or even at a later time. Quality of interviews The quality of interviews conducted by EUAA and RAO caseworkers has been highly criticised. Inter alia, quality gaps such as lack of knowledge about countries of origin, lack of cultural sensitivity, questions based on a predefined list, closed and leading questions, repetitive questions, frequent interruptions and unnecessarily exhaustive interviews and conduct preventing lawyers from asking questions at the end of the interview continue to be reported.424 In 2022, legal aid actors continued to observe issues concerning the quality of the interviews as well as the procedural fairness of how they are conducted. Specifically, concerns were raised about the use of inappropriate communication methods and unsuitable questions related to past experience of harm and/or persecution which included closed questions impeding a proper follow-up, no opportunity to explain the case in the applicant’s own words, failure to consider factors that are likely to distort the applicant’s ability to express him- or herself properly (such as mental health issues or prior trauma and/or illiteracy), lack of clarification with regard to vague or ambiguous concepts mentioned by the interviewer, potential inconsistencies or misunderstandings regarding critical aspects of the case that could lead to confusion and/or the inability of the applicant to express him- or herself effectively, and more generally, violations of the right to be heard. Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the use of inappropriate methods and questions unsuitable for a) the applicants’ age, in cases of alleged minors, and more generally, violations of the right to a child-friendly environment and procedure, b) gender based violence (GBV) survivors, and c) LGBTQI+ persons. In general, no individualised assessment of the specific profile and circumstances of the asylum applicant or gender-sensitive assessment was taking place. 423 424 Information provided by the EUAA, 28 February 2023. See AIDA, Country Report Greece, 2021 Update, p. 100, https://bit.ly/3IAjhVm 98