of the interview or to find out approximately what time the interview will start, but this does not mean that the agreed time will be strictly adhered to. Additionally, there was no waiting area at the premises of the RAO for the lawyers who represent asylum applicants at registrations and interviews. Moreover, employees of the RAO very often refused to receive the lawyers in the offices, within the premises of the RAO. 614 Instead, the lawyers were received in the courtyard, in circumstances that violated the necessary conditions of confidentiality and, in general, the dignified exercise of the legal profession. In many cases, both attorneys and asylum applicants waited for long, exhausting hours, resulting in fatigue, jeopardising the quality of the interviews. The issue of the lack of waiting area persisted in 2024.615 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.616 In 2023, legal aid actors continued to observe issues concerning the quality of the interviews as well as the procedural fairness of how they are conducted, mainly in cases where the interview was conducted by the Greek Asylum Service (GAS). Specifically, concerns were raised about the use of unsuitable communication methods and 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 unsuitable methods and questions, including unfriendly interview environment 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) survivors617, and c) LGBTQI+ persons. 618 In general, no individualised assessment of the specific profile and circumstances of the asylum applicant or gender-sensitive assessment was taking place. Namely, results of a survey on treatment of LGBTQI+ asylum applicants in Greece within the context of the asylum procedure, based on interviews conducted in 2023, revealed use of prohibited and discriminatory questioning, questions related to sexual practice and questions based on stereotypical notions during the asylum interview by the caseworkers, and a lack of caseworkers’ competence in assessing LGBTQI+ claims and failure to align with the DSSH (Difference, Shame, Stigma, Harm) model provided by the EUAA.619 Illustrative of the above is the reasoning of a negative decision issued by Kos RAO, for an asylum applicant with, inter alia, a homosexuality claim and represented by GCR:620 For instance, the applicant could not elaborate on the process and the way in which he became aware of his sexual orientation, saying that this happened after an incident of rape when he was [x - minor] years old. […] The applicant gives almost no information about this [rape] incident. When next asked how he felt about his realisation of his sexual orientation, he was content to answer that he accepted it while others did not. One would expect that since it was an internal process, and indeed something that would cause him trouble in his own country, he would be able to give more details about how he experienced it and his feelings and even give more information about how he became aware of it. Finally, when asked whether he knew about LGBTI organisations in his country or about the law on homosexuality in his country, the applicant replied negatively. One would expect him to be aware of such organisations or even the law since he 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 Ibid. Information acquired during the Lesvos LAsWG meeting, 23 January 2024. See AIDA, Country Report Greece, 2021 Update, p. 100, https://bit.ly/3IAjhVm. See Fenix, A GENDERED GAZE ON MIGRATION: Report on sexual and gender-based violence in the context of the Greek asylum policy on Lesvos, February 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mk7kmp7t. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, LGBTQI+ Asylum Seekers in Greece, 8 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5hfsamd5. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, ibid. More information available on the applicant’s case file, with GCR. 122