consider whether an individual is a member of a particular group or not when deciding whether there was a human rights violation.272 Article 21 et seq. RCD, as set forth above, defines certain groups in need of protection. This definition was provided primarily because persons who exhibit the listed group characteristics are likely to be considered vulnerable. Special protection provisions, therefore, apply to these groups of persons. The “special need for protection” in Article 21 et seq. RCD is not congruent with the concept of “vulnerability” within the meaning of Article. 3 ECHR. This is because the telos of the respective legal concepts is different. While the RCD is centered on the premise that certain groups of persons require special guarantees in the context of an asylum procedure, the case law of the ECtHR on vulnerability under Article 3 ECHR is based on the idea that certain groups of persons are particularly “vulnerable” with regard to human rights violations. Thus, the ECtHR’s criterion was developed with the idea that certain groups of people may be at particular risk of human rights violations. For example, a blow to the body of an adult man will not constitute inhuman treatment, in some circumstances. However, an equally severe blow to a child may be assessed differently. The same state action can therefore cause different levels of suffering depending on the degree of vulnerability of the person in question. It can therefore also be assessed differently in the context of Article 3 ECHR.273 Regarding the minimum requirement for the detention conditions and protection of certain persons under ECHR, existence of a violation will depend primarily on the state (in)action that causes the level of suffering. There is currently no blanket answer to when detention conditions violate human rights. There exists, however, significant ECtHR case-law that suggests that the Court regularly considers applicants’ special circumstances or needs. For example, in Rahimi v Greece, the Court found that the conditions for an unaccompanied minor detained on Lesvos violated his rights under Article 3, noting that the conditions had been described as “abominable” and that the detention centre lacked any age appropriate facilities.274 In Elefteriadis, the ECtHR ruled that Article 3 ECHR obliges the state to protect a prisoner with a serious lung condition from the effects of so-called passive smoking.275 The Court has also held that failure to treat serious illnesses may fall within the scope of Article 2 ECHR – the right to life – if the state was responsible for the treatment276 – as it is in detention. On healthcare, the Court has expressly clarified that “suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, may be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible.”277 Thus, state acts and omissions in the area of health care can, in certain circumstances, trigger state responsibility to effectively prevent a violation of Article 3 ECHR by requiring the state to provide adequate medical treatment. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of Article 3 ECHR.278 In Popov v. France, the Court held that French authorities violated Articles 3, 5 (1), 5 (4), and 8 when it detained a family for two weeks in an administrative detention centre.279 In Sakir, the Court ruled that national authorities must ensure 272 ECtHR, Judgment of 21/01/2011, No. 30696/09, M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece, para. 219. 273 Cf. in detail Sußner, Wer geht, ist selber schuld? Unionsrechtliche Perspektiven auf Gewaltschutzansprüche von LGBTIQAsylsuchenden in Unterkünften – unter Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung des EGMR, in EuGRZ 2019, p. 442 et seq. 274 ECtHR, Judgement of 05/07/2011, No. 8687/08, Rahimi v. Greece, paras. 81-85. 275 ECtHR, Judgment of 25/01/2011, No. 38427/05, Elefteriadis v. Romania, para. 48. 276 Cf. ECtHR, Judgment of 09/06/1998, No. 23413/94, L.C.B. v. the U.K., paras. 36-41. The Judgment concerned an applicant suffering from leukemia. Numerous other decisions, such as on treatments for hepatitis and HIV can be found in: ECtHR, Guide on Art. 2 of the Convention - Right to life, 31/12/2020, p. 7. 277 ECtHR, Judgment of 29/04/2002, No. 2346/02, Pretty v. the U.K., para. 52. 278 Thus explicitly ECtHR, Judgment of 26/05/2011 No. 27617/04, R.R. v. Poland, para. 152. 279 ECtHR, Judgement of 19/01/2012, Nos. 39472/07 & 39474/07, Popov v. France, para. 91. 43 DETENTION OF MIGRANTS ON THE ISLAND OF KOS