31 An order authorizing a deprivation of liberty did report receiving some information, did not must be appealable and reviewable by a receive it in the form of official information judge. A detention not authorized by a court from the Greek authorities. Rather some partic- and outside of a judicial framework is consid- ipants stated that they received information ered “wholly unacceptable”. The detention or- from the occasionally forthcoming interpreters der must include the name of the authority who visit during routine COVID-19 doctor visits implementing the detention and the deten- or by other asylum seekers. Without any docu- tion’s whereabouts so that an individual may mentation or information provided about their challenge the detention.91 quarantine, most interviewees relied on word- 88 89 90 Application As a part of this report, Equal Rights reviewed many RIS, GAS, and also Police Directorate files of persons quarantined on Chios between November 2020 and January 2022 and did not find a single individualised detention decision ordering the quarantine or even any official document referencing the quarantine at all. This lack of detention or confinement orders was confirmed by RIS on 23. July 2021 when they stated in a letter to Equal Rights that the authorities do not issue an individualised detention order for quarantine because they do not consider quarantine to be administrative detention. 92 This was also confirmed by participants in this report, who verified that they did not receive any information on the reasons for their detention or any kind of order they could challenge. Of the 11 persons quarantined and interviewed on Chios, four persons reported that they were not informed of the reasoning for or the projected length of their quarantine at all. Even those who of-mouth information. Interviewees explained that those quarantined who happened to speak English sometimes communicated with the police officers guarding the quarantine site to learn that they would be held for approximately two weeks as a public health precaution. As Victoria told us, “noone told us what was happening. The policemen would come to change the shifts. But I would be asleep. The policemen would come to check after shift change. Then they would check every room. They would not speak to us. Someone asked “how many days will we be here?” And the police said “14 days.” After the 14 days, they brought a vehicle. They didn’t tell us where we were going. Then they took us to Vial”. For Ali, the lack of order or information led him to believe he was in prison: “In the beginning no one explained to us that this was quarantine. I thought I was in jail because I did not have papers. It was not until a few days in that I met other people that they said I was in quarantine and not in jail”. Regardless of the Greek authorities’ opinion, Art. 5(2) in conjunction with (3) ECHR. Art. 8(3) Directive 2013/33/EU and Art. 5(3) ECHR. 90 ECtHR, Judgment of 13 December 2012, 39630/09, El-Masri V. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, para. 236. 91 Cf. ECtHR, Judgement of 25 May 1998, 24276/94, Kurt, para. 130 et seq (finding it a violation of Art. 5 ECHR when a man was held in military custody with no court record under which to challenge the detention, allowing the State to deny the detention); see also ECtHR, Judgment of 13 December 2012, 39630/09, El-Masri V. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, para. 236 (stating that the failure of a Member State, “to hold data recording such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee as well as the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it” was “incompatible with the very purpose of” Art. 5). 92 Letter from Chios RIC Director, July 2021. 88 89 ‘Quarantine of Asylum Seeker’ – A legal classification of the quarantine practice on Chios