the medical and psychosocial assessment, the medical psychosocial unit of the RIC should inform the competent RAO or AAU of the Asylum Service. As mentioned above, due to significant gaps in the provision of reception and identification procedures in 2024, owing to a significant understaffing of medical units and other issues, GCR has found that for a considerable number of applicants the asylum procedure was initiated without a proper medical screening and/or a psychosocial assessment having been concluded. Accordingly, where vulnerability is not identified before the asylum procedure, the initiation of a vulnerability assessment and further referral for vulnerability identification depends to a great extent on the discretion of the caseworker. However, according to GCR’s observations, the referral for further medical/psychosocial screening by the caseworker after the first instance interview before the competent RAO is not common practice. Also, according to GCR’s knowledge, the understaffing of State authorities in combination with the constant pressure to process more asylum applications more quickly, resulted in a serious undermining of procedural legal safeguards and thus to decisions of poor quality and unjustified rejections in many cases. GCR has documented, from reports from the field, many cases in which the asylum interview took place before the medical examination of the asylum applicant, thus impacted negatively on the outcome of the asylum cases. As far as GCR is aware, also in 2024, Article 72(3) of the Asylum Code (exemption from the fast-track border procedure and referral to the regular procedure due to vulnerability) was not applied by the Asylum Service without a prior lifting of the geographical restriction. It was also noted that after the lifting of the geographical restriction for reasons not related to vulnerability, Article 72(3) of the Asylum Code was applied in several cases by the Asylum Service and the case was referred to the regular procedure without the person being identified as vulnerable. If the interview of first instance had already been conducted before the decision to lift the geographical restriction and the referral to the regular procedure due to vulnerability, it was not conducted again in accordance with the guarantees provided by Article 72(2) of the Asylum Code. For further information on the geographical restriction, see chapter on Reception Conditions – Freedom of Movement. Data for applications exempted from the fast-track border procedure and referred to the regular procedure on grounds of vulnerability was not provided by MoMa despite GCR’s request. Throughout 2023, the various RAOs in the different islands followed different practices as regards the conduct of asylum interviews (see the Regular procedure and Fast-track border procedure). 1.1.2. Vulnerability identification in the mainland On 13 July 2022, the MoMA launched a new registration platform, through which persons wishing to apply for asylum while on the Greek mainland, including vulnerable ones, need to first book an appointment for lodging their application. The registration of applicants staying in Southern Greece takes place in the facility of Malakasa (Athens), while the registration of applicants staying in Northern Greece takes place in the facility of Diavata (Thessaloniki). Since its operationalisation, the platform has been marked by deficiencies restricting applicants’ access to the procedure and in turn a prompt vulnerability assessment. For instance, as noted in a joint RLS and MIT report in November 2023,689 “out of 19 persons interviewed between May and October 2023, 69% of respondents who used the online platform to book an appointment at a RIC reported issues accessing or using the platform […and] 23% respondents said they paid a private lawyer to apply via the online platform for them […]”. Meanwhile, access to the platform was yet again suspended between May 2023 and the beginning of July 2023.690 Challenges have continued being identified in 2024 as well. According to UNHCR, RIC Malakasa maintained a very limited number of appointments on the platform, while RIC Diavata had less limitations. Yet in the case of Diavata, in GCR’s experience, the online platform would remain open for 15-16 appointments per day, following which it went down quickly again. SolidarityNow noted that the platform 689 690 Refugee Legal Support (RLS) & Mobile Info Team (MIT), Protection Unavailable: Dysfunctional Practices and Restrictions on the Right to Asylum, November 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/4zf673xu, p.22. GCR, Submission to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the groups of cases of M.S.S. v. Greece (Application No. 30696/09) and Rahimi v. Greece (8687/08), July 2023, p. 3, available at: https://bit.ly/4b3Q3JR. 139