- 45 A psychologist and social worker from the NGO MEDIN were present most weekdays and the Red Cross visited on Mondays; however, no educational or purposeful activities were offered to the juveniles and many did not possess adequate clothing or proper footwear. Further, they had no information about their length of stay in the facility or what would happen to them. Some of the juveniles had been in detention for more than six months in various police establishments around the country. The holding facility had no specific operating rules and was essentially run like a police detention facility, albeit the police officers were more accommodating to the juveniles’ needs. However, the police officers had no specific training for working with irregular migrants, let alone unaccompanied minors. As regards discipline, whenever a juvenile posed a problem he would be transferred to Petrou Ralli. 79. In the light of the findings of its delegation at the Amygdaleza Special holding facility for unaccompanied minors as well as in other establishments where juvenile irregular migrants were being held, the CPT considers that the Greek authorities must take concerted steps to provide better care and support to this vulnerable group. In this context, it wishes to recall the CPT’s position that every effort should be made to avoid resorting to the deprivation of liberty of an irregular migrant who is a minor. Following the principle of the “best interests of the child”, as formulated in Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, detention of children, including unaccompanied children, is rarely justified and, in the Committee’s view, can certainly not be motivated solely by the absence of residence status. When, exceptionally, a child is detained, the deprivation of liberty should be for the shortest possible period of time;48 all efforts should be made to allow the immediate release of unaccompanied children from a detention facility and their placement in more appropriate care. Further, owing to the vulnerable nature of a child, additional safeguards should apply whenever a child is detained. This approach was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, which, on several occasions, held that the administrative detention of children in an adult detention centre with a view to their deportation had amounted to inhuman treatment.49 As soon as possible after the presence of a child becomes known to the authorities, a professionally qualified person should conduct an initial interview, in a language the child understands. An assessment should be made of the child’s particular vulnerabilities, including from the standpoints of age, health, psychosocial factors and other protection needs, including those deriving from violence, trafficking or trauma. Unaccompanied children deprived of their liberty should be provided with prompt and free access to legal and other appropriate assistance, including the assignment of a guardian or legal representative. At present, it appears that a prosecutor is the legal guardian of an unaccompanied minor; however, in practice, there is absolutely no contact between the guardian and the child, who is merely left in limbo awaiting a decision at some point on his future. 48 49 According to Article 17 (1) of the EU Returns Directive 2008/115/EC, unaccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time. Article 17 (5) of the Directive states that the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration in the context of the detention of minors pending removal. See European Court of Human Rights, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, Judgment of 12 October 2006; Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, Judgment of 19 January 2010; and Popov v. France, Judgment of 19 January 2012.