Opinion; Subjects: GREECE, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-00857 (E) 100226 110226
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 64/2025 concerning five minors whose names are known to
the Working Group (Greece)*
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 25 July 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Greece a communication concerning Messrs. A, B, C, D
and E. The Government replied to the communication on 22 September 2025. The State is a
Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
* Miriam Estrada Castillo and Mumba Malila did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
General Assembly
Distr.: General
11 February 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
2
GE.26-00857
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
The source submits a case concerning five unaccompanied migrant children. Mr. A,
born on 12 March 2008, Mr. B, born on 17 April 2009, Mr. C, born on 10 May 2007, and
Mr. D, born on 27 October 2008, are Egyptian nationals, and are currently detained in the
Closed Controlled Access Centre in Samos, Greece. The case also includes a fifth individual,
Mr. E, born on 16 August 2008, also an Egyptian national, who was detained in the Closed
Controlled Access Centre in Samos until 6 March 2025.
5.
The source states that, although Mr. E has been released, his case exemplifies the
conditions of detention endured by the four other individuals who remained detained, and is
the best documented one, as he was the only one among the five minors to have been able to
establish contact with legal representatives. His case therefore serves as a key example of the
arbitrary detention to which the four others were subjected.
(i)
Context
6.
According to the source, all asylum-seekers entering Greek territory via the eastern
Aegean islands are subjected to a geographical restriction – known as a restriction of freedom
order – when they lodge their asylum application. This restriction limits their movement to
the island where they arrived and remains in effect throughout the asylum process.
7.
The source explains that restriction of freedom orders are intended to facilitate the
completion of reception and identification procedures. Despite Greek law stating that they
cannot exceed 25 days,2 the source claims that the authorities routinely extend restriction of
freedom orders beyond the legal time frame, leaving many asylum-seekers detained without
a valid restriction of freedom order, in violation of Greek and international law. The source
specifies that restriction of freedom orders are issued by the Head of Administration of a
facility, which is an administrative rather than a judicial authority.
8.
According to the source, the Closed Controlled Access Centre in Samos is located in
a mountainous region, approximately 9 kilometres from the island’s capital, Vathy. It
operates under the jurisdiction of the country’s Ministry of Migration and Asylum and is
under continuous surveillance and security control by the Greek police and a private security
company, with a minimum of 50 uniformed personnel present per shift.
9.
The source explains that the Closed Controlled Access Centre contains a so-called
Safe Area, which is fenced and specifically designed for unaccompanied migrant children.
Upon arrival at the Closed Controlled Access Centre, unaccompanied migrant children are
immediately transferred to the Safe Area and subjected to a restriction of freedom order until
they can be relocated to a shelter for minors on the mainland.
10.
According to the source, minors accommodated in the Safe Area receive basic care
and targeted support from a non-governmental organization, Zeuxis, which should
theoretically include case management, psychosocial and legal support, preparation for
independent living, access to protection, assistance, healthcare and essential supplies, and
coordination with the General Secretariat for Vulnerable Persons and Institutional Protection
of the Ministry of Migration and Asylum. In practice, however, the source reports that all
five minors have had practically no access to any such service. It states that the Greek
Administrative Court of Syros and the European Court of Human Rights have both
recognized the Safe Area as a place of de facto detention.3
(ii)
Circumstances of detention
11.
According to the source, the five minors arrived at the Closed Controlled Access
Centre of Samos around the same period:
2 Act No. 4939/2022, art. 40 (a).
3 European Court of Human Rights, T.A. and Others v. Greece, Applications Nos. 15293/20 and three
others, Judgment, 3 October 2024; and Administrative Court of Syros, decision AP7/2025,
21 February 2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
3
(a)
Mr. A and Mr. C both arrived on 15 December 2024;
(b)
Mr. B arrived on 18 December 2024;
(c)
Mr. D arrived on 30 November 2024;
(d)
Mr. E arrived on 16 December 2024.
12.
The source specifies that Mr. E presented himself at the Closed Controlled Access
Centre for registration three days after arriving in Greece on 13 December 2024. He was
placed under a restriction of freedom order issued by the Administrator of the facility on
16 December 2024 for an initial period of five days, for the reception and identification
procedures to be completed. On 20 December 2024, the restriction was extended for an
additional 20 days. Despite the reception and identification procedures being completed,
however, Mr. E reportedly remained detained for a total of 80 days, exceeding the maximum
legal limit of 25 days by 55 days, without having a valid restriction of freedom order for that
time.
13.
The source argues that, since the stated purpose of the restriction of freedom order –
carrying out the registration and identification process – had been fulfilled, there was no legal
or practical justification for his continued detention. Keeping him confined was neither
necessary nor proportionate, as it no longer served any legitimate administrative function and
amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty.
14.
The source submits, moreover, that Mr. E was informed of the purpose of the
restriction of freedom order in English, despite not being able to understand the language,
which hindered his ability to comprehend the implications of the decision or to seek further
clarification. It states that the same process was applied in the case of the other four minors
who were issued with restriction of freedom orders upon arrival: the restrictions placed on
them were issued automatically and then extended without individual assessments being
carried out and without clear explanations in a language they could understand.
15.
On 21 February 2025, the Administrative Court of Syros reportedly granted Mr. E’s
request for his de facto detention to be lifted, finding his detention to be unlawful in view of
the completion of his registration and identification procedures on 3 January 2025, his
vulnerability owing to his age and state of health, and the period of time for which he had
de facto been detained and which was not attributable to him. On that basis, the court ordered
his immediate transfer to an appropriate long-term accommodation facility or an emergency
shelter for unaccompanied minors, and the appointment of an official guardian for him.
16.
The source claims that, despite this ruling, Mr. E was not immediately released and
remained detained until 6 March 2025, demonstrating, in its view, a clear disregard for
judicial decisions and the continued arbitrary nature of the detention. By the time he left the
facility, he had reportedly spent 80 days detained in the Safe Area, 55 days of which were
after the maximum legal 25-day period had ended.
17.
The source underlines, in this regard, that Mr. E was the only one of the five minors
who was able to obtain a release and transfer – the sole reason being that he was able to
access legal representation.
18.
The remaining four minors, in contrast, continue to be detained in the Closed
Controlled Access Centre of Samos. The source argues that, despite the judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights in T.A. and Others v. Greece, in which the Court
acknowledged that unaccompanied migrant children within the Safe Area in Samos are being
subjected to de facto detention, and the Administrative Court’s ruling with regard to Mr. E,
no action has been taken by the Greek authorities to transfer them, and no explanation has
been provided as to why only Mr. E was released while the other four remain confined. The
source maintains that the failure to implement binding legal decisions in a consistent and
non-discriminatory manner further confirms the systemic and arbitrary nature of their
detention. The confinement of Messrs. A, B, C and D now far exceeds the legal 25-day limit,
despite the purpose of the restriction of freedom orders having already been fulfilled.
Accordingly, the source considers that they remain in detention without justification,
effectively rendering the measure punitive rather than administrative.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
4
GE.26-00857
(iii)
Legal assistance and recourse
19.
According to the source, on 15 January 2025, a lawyer appointed by the Court of
Samos to represent, in the context of a criminal prosecution, two unaccompanied migrant
children who were also being held in the Safe Area in Samos reportedly provided them with
several business cards and asked them to share the cards with other minors in the facility, so
that others could also seek legal assistance if needed. The source states that this is how Mr. E
managed to find and contact a lawyer.
20.
The source further explains that, due to the severe restrictions on access to legal
assistance within the Safe Area, meeting a lawyer required exceptional effort and
intervention. Even after Mr. E had secured legal representation, private and regular
communication was difficult due to limitations on in-person meetings and restricted access
to communication devices.
21.
According to the source, Mr. E’s legal representatives were able to file a complaint
against his de facto detention, which resulted in the favourable court ruling of 21 February
2025. Despite that decision, however, Mr. E remained detained until 6 March 2025,
demonstrating the significant delays in the enforcement of legal remedies.
22.
The source contends that, in contrast, legal assistance remains virtually inaccessible
for Messrs. A, B, C and D. It explains that most unaccompanied minors in the Safe Area have
not been designated a legal guardian, which makes it impossible for them to initiate legal
proceedings. Moreover, after the court ruling in favour of Mr. E, the facility’s administration
allegedly stopped issuing authorizations for legal action, on the basis that only an appointed
guardian could represent a minor. However, despite the legal obligation of Greece to
designate a legal guardian, the source states that no one has been assigned to that role for
Messrs. A, B, C and D, which has contributed further to preventing them from challenging
their detention. According to the source, the absence of legal guardianship is compounded by
the fact that Zeuxis has only one lawyer, and no legal aid organizations are allowed to enter
the Safe Area.
23.
The source submits that, under Greek law, detained individuals have the right to
challenge a restriction of freedom order before the Administrative Court, a legal recourse in
theory available to all minors in the Safe Area. In practice, however, only Mr. E has been
able to exercise this right, owing to the systematic lack of access to legal representation. The
source points out that, even then, the implementation of the decision was significantly
delayed, with Mr. E only being transferred out of the facility close to two weeks after the
ruling had been issued.
24.
According to the source, even if the legal aid organization assisting Mr. E were able
to overcome these administrative barriers and be officially appointed as the legal
representative for the other four minors, the financial costs of pursuing domestic legal
remedies would be prohibitively high, further obstructing their access to justice. Moreover,
the source submits that the Greek authorities refuse to hand over case files to lawyers,
preventing effective legal representation. As a result, while domestic legal remedies formally
exist, in practice they are largely ineffective, owing to barriers to access, inconsistent judicial
decisions, delays in implementation and the lack of legal representation for minors.
(iv)
Conditions of detention
25.
The source reports that the Safe Area is severely overcrowded and unsanitary. It
considers, notably on the basis of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in
T.A. and Others v. Greece, that being held there amounts to inhumane and degrading
treatment, given that:
(a)
Although its official capacity is 200 residents, the Safe Area reportedly housed
between 450 and 520 unaccompanied migrant children from October 2024 to mid-February
2025;
(b)
It is strewn with litter and infested with cockroaches and rodents due to the
absence of an adequate waste collection system;
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
5
(c)
Many residents sleep on the floor, on cardboard, or share mattresses with
several other minors. Rooms are overcrowded, with no privacy, broken doors, and exposed
electrical wiring. During their first month in the Safe Area, Messrs. A, B, C, D and E were
all forced to sleep on the floor, only receiving a shared bed after more than a month;
(d)
The sanitary facilities are allegedly in deplorable condition. Many toilets are
unusable due to filth and damage, and there is no access to hot water. Basic hygiene items,
such as soap and toothpaste, are rarely provided;
(e)
Food is insufficient in both quantity and nutritional value. Many report going
to bed hungry every night, and food theft among minors is common on account of the
distribution system. Mr. E also experienced severe weight loss and malnutrition;
(f)
None of the five minors were provided with warm clothing or winter shoes;
(g)
The five minors have had no access to educational and recreational activities,
nor are they provided with age-appropriate activities necessary for their psychosocial
development, further contributing to their isolation and distress;
(h)
Reports indicate systematic police abuse, including officers entering rooms at
night, waking minors up by kicking them, and forcing them to clean the area. There have
been documented cases of strip searches and of physical assaults resulting in broken bones;
(i)
Due to the lack of supervision, older children frequently steal items from
younger residents, including food, clothing and bedding.
26.
The source also reports that the Closed Controlled Access Centre is surrounded by a
double NATO-type security fence. Entries and exits are tightly regulated by means of various
control systems, such as turnstiles, magnetic gates, X-ray machines and biometric controls,
making it impossible for anyone to enter or leave the facility unless authorized.
27.
The source further reports that access to healthcare in the Safe Area is extremely
limited and often inadequate. The entire Closed Controlled Access Centre has only one
primary care doctor, one psychologist and four nurses to tend to a population of officially
3,650 residents but which at times reaches 4,500. The medical unit only operates from
Monday to Friday between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. No medical care is available outside those hours.
28.
According to the source, in the Safe Area, medical care is even more restricted.
Médecins sans frontières, the primary healthcare provider in the Closed Controlled Access
Centre, is prohibited from entering the Safe Area. A paediatrician from Doctors of the World
is present for no more than 10 hours per week, solely to issue health cards. In addition, a
dermatologist is available but has been instructed by the clinic’s medical supervisor to limit
the number of appointments per day with unaccompanied migrant children to three.
29.
The source states that Mr. A and Mr. E suffer from skin infections, including what
appear to be severe cases of scabies, which remain untreated. Moreover, Mr. C fell and broke
his arm, and has a pulmonary infection, while Mr. D suffers from kidney stones. None of the
four minors remaining in the Safe Area has access to medical care. Only Mr. E managed to
see a doctor once during his stay in the camp. The source argues that this lack of adequate
medical attention, combined with the overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, puts the health
and well-being of unaccompanied migrant children at serious risk.
30.
In addition, the source states that psychological services are allegedly virtually
non-existent, despite many minors having experienced severe trauma before and during their
migration journey. All five minors are allegedly mentally exhausted and report significant
distress.
(v)
Legal analysis
31.
The source argues that the deprivation of liberty of the five minors is arbitrary under
categories I, III and IV of the Working Group’s methods of work.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
6
GE.26-00857
a.
Category I
32.
Referring to article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the source recalls
that detention is arbitrary under category I when it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal
basis justifying the deprivation of liberty.
33.
The source recalls that Messrs. A, B, C, D and E were subject to a restriction of
freedom order, the maximum duration of which is 25 days. It points out, however, that this
limit was exceeded in the case of all five of them. Since the stated purpose of the restriction
of freedom order – registration and identification – has long since been fulfilled, their
continued confinement is neither necessary nor justified, in addition to being grossly
disproportionate, as it far exceeds the maximum legal time frame set by Greek law.
34.
The source submits, on the basis of articles 9 (2) and 14 (3) of the Covenant, that the
Administrator of the Closed Controlled Access Centre arbitrarily detained the five minors
and failed to promptly inform them of the reasons for their detention in a language they could
understand.
b.
Category III
35.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of the five minors falls under
category III because they were systematically denied their fundamental procedural rights.
36.
The source argues that Messrs. A, B, C, D and E have endured unsanitary and
overcrowded conditions, with inadequate access to clean water, food, medical care and legal
assistance. Because of these deplorable conditions,4 the lack of medical care and the severe
toll taken by the arbitrary detention, the source considers that the lives of the four minors
who are still detained are at great risk, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. Moreover,
the source contends that the prolonged exposure of a vulnerable minor to these conditions,
without access to legal remedies to challenge the situation, causes severe physical and
psychological distress amounting to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, in
violation of article 7 of the Covenant and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
37.
The source recalls that the Safe Area is overcrowded and that no legal guardians have
been appointed to protect the best interests of the detained minors, depriving them of essential
legal safeguards. It submits that, although Greek law theoretically allows for judicial review
of restriction of freedom orders, the five minors have had, or continue to have, no practical
ability to challenge their detention, owing to the denial of legal representation and the
administrative obstacles imposed by the authorities of the Closed Controlled Access Centre.
As a result, they have been left without any means to contest their confinement or to seek
redress.
38.
Furthermore, the source underlines that Messrs. A, B, C and D have never been
brought before a judicial authority to determine the lawfulness of their detention, in direct
violation of articles 9 (4) and 14 of the Covenant.
c.
Category IV
39.
The source recalls that when asylum-seekers, migrants or refugees are subjected to
prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review
or remedy, such cases fall into category IV. The source argues that, as a general principle,
minors should not be detained under any circumstances, and refers to article 37 (b) of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which no child is to be deprived of his
or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. In addition, the arrest, detention or imprisonment of a
child must be in conformity with the law and used only as a measure of last resort and for the
shortest appropriate period of time. Therefore, according to the source, even in exceptional
cases where detention is considered, it must comply with strict legal safeguards.
4 European Court of Human Rights, A.D. v. Greece, Application No. 55363/19, Judgment, 4 April
2023, paras. 14–20; European Court of Human Rights, T.A. and Others v. Greece; and European
Committee of Social Rights, International Commission of Jurists and European Council for Refugees
and Exiles v. Greece (No. 173/2018), complaint registered on 30 November 2018, para. 223.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
7
40.
In the present case, the continued deprivation of liberty in inhumane conditions of
Messrs. A, B, C and D, all of whom are unaccompanied migrant children seeking
international protection and are still detained in the Safe Area, subjects them to severe
violations of their fundamental rights. The source considers that the delayed release of Mr. E
despite the clear legal recognition of the illegality of his detention further underscores the
arbitrary nature of the confinement of all five minors.
41.
The source submits that the Greek authorities have failed to recognize the heightened
vulnerability of the individuals concerned as unaccompanied children requiring special
protective measures, beyond the general safeguards of article 9 of the Covenant and article
37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 5 It concludes, on this basis, that by
disregarding their status, which is a vulnerability-increasing factor in detention settings,6 the
Greek authorities have failed to uphold their obligation to ensure special protections for their
personal liberty and security, in direct violation of articles 10 and 24 of the Covenant.
(b)
Response from the Government
42.
On 25 July 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations concerning
Messrs. A, B, C, D and E to the Government and requested it to provide, by 23 September
2025, detailed information about them and to clarify the legal provisions justifying their
detention.
43.
In its response, received on 22 September 2025, the Government submits that
third-country nationals or stateless persons entering Greece without legal formalities are
subject to reception and identification procedures under articles 38 to 44 of Act
No. 4939/2022. The Government emphasizes that any restriction of movement imposed by
the governor of a reception and identification centre is for a minimum duration of 5 days and
a maximum duration of 25 days within a designated area, and is solely to complete the
reception and identification procedures. The Government argues that this restriction does not
constitute detention as defined in article 50 of Act No. 4939/2022, but rather constitutes a
temporary administrative measure.
44.
The Government states that individual decisions clearly inform each person of the
legal grounds and factual reasons for the restriction, and of their right to challenge the legality
of the decision, are accompanied by interpretation or translation into a language understood
by the individuals and are communicated in a child-friendly manner where minors are
concerned. The Government specifically denies the allegation that decisions were
communicated only in English to the minors concerned.
45.
The Government submits that unaccompanied children are accommodated in separate
“safe zones”, which comply with applicable requirements. It emphasizes that residence in
safe zones constitutes a temporary solution pending the adoption of long-term sustainable
solutions such as family reunification, relocation, or referral to long-term accommodation
facilities. It argues, moreover, that the safe zones do not constitute places of detention or
imprisonment, but rather are specially designed protective spaces aimed at ensuring the
minors’ safety and preventing their exposure to risks or exploitation networks. The
Government maintains that the security fencing and controlled entry constitute security
measures for the prevention of uncontrolled adult circulation within the minors’ area, not for
deprivation of liberty.
46.
The Government also submits that unaccompanied minors have access to informal
educational activities, language lessons, recreational programmes and psychosocial support.
Moreover, although there are some necessary restrictions on access within the safe zones for
the purposes of protection, non-governmental organizations providing legal assistance have
access to safe zones and minors may request legal assistance at any time through established
referral pathways.
5 See Kashtanova and Slukina v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/118/D/2106/2011).
6 See O.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/121/D/2770/2016); and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general
comment No. 14 (2013).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
8
GE.26-00857
47.
The Government points out that, according to articles 50 and 51 of Act No. 4939/2022,
applicants for international protection are only detained following an individualized
assessment based on specific grounds enumerated in the legislation, such as for the
determination of their identity, or if the person constitutes a danger to national security or
public order, or to ensure the enforcement of a transfer decision. The Government emphasizes
that minors are detained only as a last resort, taking into consideration their best interests,
and only if alternative measures cannot be applied, pursuant to article 52 (2) of Act
No. 4939/2022.
48.
The Government submits that applicants entering through certain islands are subject
to geographical restriction within each island, pursuant to decision No. 1140/2019 of the
Minister of Migration Policy. The restriction is imposed solely to facilitate accelerated border
asylum procedures under the European Union-Türkiye joint declaration of 2016. The
Government states that, for unaccompanied minors, the restriction is lifted by a decision of
the director of the reception and identification facility, allowing transfer to the mainland.
49.
The Government submits that, despite the challenges arising from the large number
of arrivals, unaccompanied minors in the Closed Controlled Access Centre in Samos have
access to basic services meeting international and European Union standards, including three
meals per day, clothing, hygiene items, cleaning services and medical care. It denies
allegations of violence and ill-treatment, stating that no official complaints have been
submitted to the competent authorities regarding such behaviour. It maintains that police
officers and security staff are subject to strict rules of conduct and that any complaints would
be immediately investigated.
50.
The Government submits that Mr. A arrived at the Closed Controlled Access Centre
on 15 December 2024 and was placed in the Safe Zone. Restriction of movement was
imposed on him on 16 December 2024 and was extended on 20 December 2024 under
article 40 of Act No. 4939/2022, for the reception and identification procedures. His asylum
application was registered on 7 January 2025. He was transferred to a long-term
accommodation facility operated by the Hellenic Red Cross on 26 May 2025, and a legal
guardian was appointed for him the following month. He departed without notice on 22 June
2025. Following his unauthorized departure, his asylum procedure was discontinued, on
25 July 2025.
51.
The Government submits that Mr. B arrived at the Closed Controlled Access Centre
on 18 December 2024 and was placed in the Safe Zone. Restriction of movement was
imposed on 18 December 2024 and extended on 23 December 2024. His asylum application
was registered on 8 January 2025. He was transferred to an accommodation shelter operated
by a non-governmental organization on 2 June 2025 and departed without notice on 16 June
2025. Following his unauthorized departure, his asylum application was discontinued, on
25 August 2025.
52.
The Government submits that Mr. C arrived at the Closed Controlled Access Centre
on 15 December 2024. Restriction of movement was imposed on 16 December 2024 and
extended on 20 December 2024. His asylum application was registered on 2 January 2025.
He voluntarily left the facility on 15 May 2025, upon reaching adulthood.
53.
As for Mr. D, the Government submits that he arrived at the Closed Controlled Access
Centre on 30 November 2024. Restriction of movement was imposed on 3 December 2024
and extended on 6 December 2024. His asylum application was registered on 20 December
2024. On 26 May 2025, the Public Prosecutor assigned his care and protection to his uncle.
54.
Lastly, the Government submits that Mr. E arrived at the Closed Controlled Access
Centre on 15 December 2024. Restriction of movement was imposed on 16 December 2024
and extended on 20 December 2024. His asylum application was registered on 1 January
2025. He was transferred to an accommodation facility run by a non-governmental
organization on 6 March 2025. Following his unauthorized departure from the facility on
21 March 2025, his asylum procedure was discontinued, on 23 May 2025.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
9
(c)
Further comments from the source
55.
In its comments on the Government’s reply, the source submits that the Government’s
response focuses on theoretical legal frameworks while ignoring the documented reality on
the ground. It argues that despite comprehensive legislative safeguards, the protections that
the Government describes are not implemented effectively in practice, as consistently
demonstrated by humanitarian organizations, legal representatives and independent
observers. The source points out that the European Court of Human Rights granted interim
measures on 19 May 2025 for 45 unaccompanied minors detained in the Safe Area, leading
to the entire facility being evacuated by 26 May 2025. 7 This extraordinary judicial
intervention confirms that the conditions there were fundamentally incompatible with the
human rights obligations of Greece.
56.
The source maintains that the restriction of movement constitutes deprivation of
liberty rather than a mere administrative measure. It submits that, in May 2025,
approximately 180 unaccompanied minors were confined to 905 square metres of living
space in the Safe Area, amounting to only 4.5 square metres per child. The 25-day statutory
maximum for restriction of movement was systematically exceeded: Mr. A was de facto
detained for 161 days, Mr. B for 156 days and Mr. C for 150 days, and while it is not clear
from the Government’s submission how long Mr. D was detained for before being assigned
to his uncle’s protection, it is evident that the period exceeded the 25-day statutory limit. The
source argues that no individualized assessments preceded these restrictions, which were
applied as a blanket policy to all unaccompanied minors upon arrival, violating the
requirement that detention of minors be a measure of last resort.
57.
The source further recalls that the Administrative Court of Syros confirmed the
unlawfulness of the 25-day detention regime, and adds that this practice is currently subject
to infringement proceedings before the European Commission. Moreover, the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture has explicitly concluded that Closed Controlled
Access Centres are not appropriate places for holding children, due to their carceral nature
and insufficient staffing levels, and has urged the Greek authorities to end the detention of
unaccompanied children in such facilities.8
58.
The source submits that the right to challenge detention orders remains illusory in
practice. As of November 2024, only six guardians were employed for over
400 unaccompanied minors in Samos. The facility had only one lawyer responsible for
providing legal support to all unaccompanied minors, whose mandate specifically excluded
assistance with detention challenges or criminal complaints. The source recalls that, in any
event, after Mr. E’s successful legal challenge before the Administrative Court, the
management of the Closed Controlled Access Centre refused to issue authorizations to
lawyers acting on behalf of minors, insisting that only officially appointed guardians could
take legal action – despite the State’s failure to provide adequate guardians.
59.
The source contests the Government’s assertion that decisions are communicated in a
language understood by the minors. It maintains that close to 100 children surveyed reported
never receiving any proper explanation or information when they were compelled to sign
their restriction of freedom order. Moreover, the orders themselves were formulaic and
contained no individualized elements.
60.
The source also disputes the Government’s assertions about adequate services. It
points out that six cases of malnutrition among children in the facility were reported in April
2025, in addition to medical care being critically insufficient and no educational or
recreational activities being provided, in violation of articles 28 and 31 of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child.
61.
The source contests the Government’s reliance on the absence of formal complaints
as evidence that no ill-treatment occurred. It stresses that structural barriers, including lack
of guardians, the absence of child-friendly complaint mechanisms, and fear of reprisals,
7 European Court of Human Rights, K.M. and Others v. Greece, Application No. 14651/25.
8 Report to the Greek Government on the Visit to Greece carried out by the European Committee for
the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 20 November to
1 December 2023, para. 136.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
10
GE.26-00857
prevent unaccompanied minors from filing complaints. The source underlines that article 19
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States to proactively protect children
from all forms of violence while in State care, regardless of whether formal complaints are
lodged.
62.
The source cites two recent orders from the European Court of Human Rights on
interim measures requiring Greece to ensure protection from ill-treatment, if necessary by
facilitating the lodging of criminal complaints by unaccompanied minors.9 It submits that
these rulings directly contradict the Government’s assertion that the absence of formal
complaints demonstrates the non-existence of violence, underlining instead the State’s
proactive duty to protect and facilitate access to justice, even without formal complaints.
2.
Discussion
63.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
64.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. A, B, C, D and E was
arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to
deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of
international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood
to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. Mere assertions by the
Government that lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the
source’s allegations.10
(a)
Preliminary observations
65.
As a preliminary matter, the Working Group notes that none of the five minors remain
in the Safe Area of the Closed Controlled Access Centre in Samos. Mr. A was transferred to
a long-term accommodation facility on 26 May 2025 but left without notice a month later.
Mr. B was transferred to a shelter on 2 June 2025 but left without notice two weeks later.
Mr. C voluntarily left the Closed Controlled Access Centre on 15 May 2025 upon turning 18.
Mr. D was placed in the care of his uncle on 26 May 2025. Mr. E was transferred to a
long-term accommodation facility on 6 March 2025, which he left on 21 March 2025.
66.
The source calculates that the five minors were detained for periods ranging from
80 to 161 days until their respective departures from the facility. The Government does not
contest the duration of the confinement but maintains that the measures constituted lawful
restrictions of movement rather than detention.
67.
The Working Group notes that the Safe Area was evacuated on 26 May 2025
following interim measures granted by the European Court of Human Rights on 19 May 2025
in the case of K.M. and Others v. Greece.
68.
Given that the allegations concern fundamental questions about the nature and legality
of the confinement regime applied to unaccompanied migrant children in Greek reception
facilities, and considering the significant periods of alleged arbitrary detention, the Working
Group will proceed to examine the submission on its merits, notwithstanding the five minors’
subsequent transfer or departure from the facility.
(b)
Category I
69.
The Working Group recalls that article 24 of the Covenant guarantees the right of
children to special protection, while article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
establishes the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions concerning
children. Article 37 (b) of the Convention, as well as the Human Rights Committee in its
general comment No. 35 (2014),11 require that detention of children be used only as a measure
of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, taking into account their best
interests as a primary consideration and the extreme vulnerability of unaccompanied minors.
9 European Court of Human Rights, O.A. and Others v. Greece, Application No. 2570/25; and
European Court of Human Rights, M.A.F. v. Greece, Application No. 13997/25.
10 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
11 See para. 18.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
11
Moreover, joint general comment No. 3 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 22 (2017) of the
Committee on the Rights of the Child emphasizes the primacy of children’s rights in
migration contexts and the necessity of best interests determination procedures for
unaccompanied children.12 The Working Group has previously applied these principles in
finding detention arbitrary where best interests assessments are absent.13 During its visit to
Greece, the Working Group specifically urged prioritizing children’s best interests and
placing children in age-appropriate facilities rather than detention.14
70.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of the five minors falls under
category I, as it lacks any legal basis. The source argues that while Greek law permits
restriction of movement for a maximum of 25 days for reception and identification
procedures, all five minors were detained far beyond that statutory limit without any judicial
authorization or additional detention order. They were confined for periods ranging from
80 to 161 days, exceeding the legal maximum by 55 to 136 days. The source contends that
the initial restriction orders were applied automatically as a blanket policy, without
individualized assessments, contrary to the requirement that detention of minors be a measure
of last resort. Furthermore, the source maintains that the conditions of confinement –
including being prohibited from leaving the Safe Area, extreme overcrowding with only
4.5 square metres per child, and complete restriction of movement – constituted de facto
detention rather than mere administrative restrictions, for which no legal basis exists under
Greek law beyond the initial 25-day period.
71.
The Government responds that the measures applied to the five minors were lawful
restrictions of movement, not detention. The Government asserts that individual decisions
clearly inform each person of the legal grounds and factual reasons for the restriction, and of
their right to challenge the decision, and are communicated in a language understood by the
recipients. The Government contends that the Safe Area does not constitute a place of
detention, but rather a temporary and specially designed protective space to ensure the safety
of minors pending long-term solutions, and that several individuals voluntarily departed or
were transferred to other accommodation arrangements.
72.
The Working Group recalls that the distinction between restriction of movement and
deprivation of liberty must be assessed on the basis of the concrete situation rather than
formal designations. 15 Any confinement or retention of an individual accompanied by
restrictions on his or her freedom of movement, even if of relatively short duration, may
amount to de facto deprivation of liberty.16 The Working Group has consistently held that
conditions tantamount to detention exist where individuals have no genuine freedom of
movement, are isolated from the outside world and lack the semblance of free life within the
facility.17
73.
The Working Group notes that Messrs. A, B, C, D and E experienced the following
conditions: They were entirely prohibited from leaving the Safe Area, except in a situation
of medical emergency, in which case they were escorted; they were confined within
NATO-type security fencing with turnstiles, magnetic gates, X-ray scanners and biometric
access controls; they lived in extremely overcrowded conditions, having only 4.5 square
metres per person; their access to legal counsel was severely restricted, with systematic
barriers preventing contact with lawyers; they faced inadequate medical care, requiring
escorts for any external treatment; and they remained confined for 80 to 161 days, far
exceeding any lawful restriction period.
12 See paras. 13 and 32 (j).
13 Opinion No. 2/2019, paras. 108 and 109. See also opinion No. 52/2014, para. 36.
14 A/HRC/45/16/Add.1, para. 72.
15 Opinion No. 22/2022, para. 65.
16 See the Working Group’s deliberation No. 9 (A/HRC/22/44, sect. III), para. 55.
17 Opinion No. 68/2024, para. 63.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
12
GE.26-00857
74.
Considering these unrebutted elements, and noting the granting of interim measures
by the European Court of Human Rights on 19 May 2025,18 which led to the evacuation of
the Safe Area, the Working Group concludes that the Safe Area constituted a place of
deprivation of liberty.
75.
Regarding the legal basis for the deprivation of liberty, the Working Group observes
that while Greek law permits restriction of movement for up to 25 days under article 40 of
Act No. 4939/2022, the five minors were detained for 80 to 161 days without any judicial
authorization or legal basis for extension of the period. The Government asserted that the
initial restriction served solely to complete reception and identification procedures, which by
law must be completed within 25 days. The Working Group considers that the systematic
and prolonged detention beyond this period, without any new legal basis, individualized
assessment or judicial review, demonstrates both an absence of legal foundation and a
disconnect from any legitimate purpose. Automatic extension of the detention for periods
exceeding the statutory maximum by up to 136 days was applied as a blanket policy to all
five minors, without consideration of their individual circumstances or of less restrictive
alternatives. This renders the deprivation of liberty not merely unlawful but fundamentally
arbitrary. Accordingly, the Working Group finds that the deprivation of liberty of Messrs. A,
B, C, D and E violates articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 9 of the Covenant. Moreover, the Working Group notes that Mr. E remained detained
until 6 March 2025, despite the Administrative Court having ordered his release on
21 February 2025, rendering his continued detention during this period without legal basis.
76.
On the basis of the above-mentioned considerations, the Working Group concludes
that the automatic detention of the five minors for 80 to 161 days violates the fundamental
principle of the best interests of the child, as outlined above. The systematic failure to
implement necessary protections, combined with the absence of a legal basis for detention
after the initial 25-day period, renders the deprivation of liberty fundamentally incompatible
with the special protection owed to children under international law.
77.
As a result, the Working Group finds that the detention of the five minors is arbitrary
under category I.
(c)
Category IV
78.
The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of the five minors is arbitrary under
category IV as it constitutes prolonged administrative custody of asylum-seekers, in violation
of international law. It argues that the five minors, all of whom at the time were minors who
had lodged asylum applications, were detained by the Greek authorities, who failed to
recognize their heightened vulnerability as unaccompanied migrant children requiring special
protective measures. Although raised under category III, the source’s arguments regarding
the denial of procedural rights are intrinsically linked to the arbitrary nature of asylum-related
detention. The source submits that all five were systematically denied their right to challenge
the legality of their detention, with only one of the five managing to challenge his detention
through external legal assistance. The source contends that this denial of access to effective
remedies and the absence of judicial oversight amount to a denial of due process.
79.
The Government responds that the restriction of freedom serves solely to complete
reception and identification procedures and does not constitute detention. After initial
registration, applicants enjoy freedom of movement as long as they remain within the
reception facilities while their asylum applications are pending. Individual decisions inform
each person of the grounds for the restriction and their right to challenge the decision.
80.
The Working Group recalls that detention falls under category IV when
asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody
without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy.19 The Working Group
also recalls that seeking asylum is not a criminal act, as affirmed in article 14 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
18 K.M. and Others v. Greece.
19 A/HRC/36/38, para. 8 (d).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
13
its Protocol.20 In addition, detention in the course of migration proceedings must be an
exceptional measure of last resort, with alternatives to detention always considered first,
particularly for children.
81.
The Working Group underlines that the right to challenge the lawfulness of detention
before a court is a self-standing human right, the absence of which constitutes a human rights
violation, and is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society.21 This right, which
constitutes customary international law and a peremptory norm (jus cogens), applies to all
forms of deprivation of liberty, including administrative detention and migration-related
detention.22 It applies irrespective of the place of detention or the legal terminology used in
legislation, and moreover, any deprivation of liberty must be subject to effective oversight
and control by the judiciary.23
82.
In the present case, the Working Group finds that the five minors were systematically
denied meaningful access to judicial review. While the Government maintains that the
restriction orders informed the minors of their right to challenge the decisions, the Working
Group notes that this theoretical remedy was rendered entirely illusory in practice. The
absence of guardians for the overwhelming majority of unaccompanied minors in the facility
meant that they had no legal capacity to initiate proceedings. Most significantly, when
lawyers attempted to act on behalf of minors in the Safe Area, the management of the Closed
Controlled Access Centre actively obstructed access by insisting that only officially
appointed guardians could take legal action, despite the State’s own failure to designate
guardians.
83.
The Working Group is particularly concerned that only Mr. E managed to challenge
his detention, and only fortuitously through external legal assistance not provided by the
State. This demonstrates that legal remedy was not accessible in practice. Furthermore, the
Working Group observes that the five minors were not subject to automatic, periodic review
to ensure compatibility with international standards. The initial restriction orders were
automatically extended without any individualized reassessment, stretching the detention in
the facility for 80 to 161 days without any judicial scrutiny of the continued necessity or
proportionality of their confinement. The Working Group also notes that throughout this
period, Messrs. A, B, C, D and E were denied the right to be heard and to express their views
as is provided for in article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and which is
emphasized by the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families and the Committee on the Rights of the Child as being
particularly important in migration contexts. 24 The absence of mechanisms to ensure
children’s meaningful participation in decisions affecting them, combined with the lack of
automatic periodic review, constitutes a serious breach of article 9 (4) of the Covenant and
the fundamental rights of the child.
84.
The Working Group further observes that the five minors’ detention was not subject
to automatic, periodic review to ensure compatibility with international standards. The initial
restriction orders were automatically extended without any individualized reassessment, and
the minors remained detained for 80 to 161 days without any judicial scrutiny of the
continued necessity or proportionality of their confinement. The absence of such automatic
review, particularly for vulnerable children, constitutes an additional serious breach of
article 9 (4) of the Covenant.
20 Opinion No. 68/2024, paras. 91 and 92. See also opinions No. 28/2017, No. 42/2017 and
No. 58/2024, and the Working Group’s revised deliberation No. 5 (A/HRC/39/45, annex) on the
deprivation of liberty of migrants, para. 9.
21 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, paras. 2 and 3.
22 Ibid., paras. 11 and 47 (a) and (b).
23 Ibid., para. 11; and opinion No. 37/2024, para. 33.
24 United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone
Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, paras. 34 and 35; and joint general
comment No. 3 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families and No. 22 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. See also
the Working Group’s revised deliberation No. 5 (A/HRC/39/45, annex), para. 28.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
14
GE.26-00857
85.
Regarding the nature of the detention itself, the Working Group notes that all five
minors had lodged asylum applications. Their detention was imposed automatically upon
arrival, as part of a blanket policy applied to all asylum-seekers reaching the Greek islands,
without any individualized assessment of necessity, proportionality or flight risk. The
Government has failed to demonstrate that alternatives to detention were considered, despite
the clear requirement under international law that detention of asylum-seeking children must
be a measure of absolute last resort.
86.
The Working Group observes that, while the Government invokes the need for
reception and identification procedures, such procedures must, by law, be completed within
25 days. The systematic detention of the individuals in question for periods ranging from
80 to 161 days cannot be justified by administrative processing requirements. The
Government has not explained why less restrictive measures could not have been applied
after the initial registration period, particularly given that four of the five minors were
ultimately placed with a family member or in open accommodation facilities, demonstrating
that alternatives were indeed available but simply not considered during the prolonged
detention period.
87.
The Working Group is particularly concerned by the automatic nature of this detention
regime. The information provided demonstrates that every unaccompanied minor arriving at
Samos was subjected to the same restriction order, without an individual assessment. This
blanket approach violates the fundamental principle that detention decisions must be based
on individual circumstances, with particular attention being paid to vulnerability and the best
interests of the child. The fact that geographical restrictions could be lifted for
unaccompanied minors by the decision of a director of a facility is further confirmation that
less restrictive measures existed but were not applied.
88.
The Working Group emphasizes that, for minors, procedural safeguards are not
merely formal requirements, but are essential protections, given their particular vulnerability
and the requirement that detention must be an exceptional measure. The systematic denial of
access to judicial review, combined with the absence of legal representation, the lack of
automatic periodic reviews and the failure to consider alternatives, rendered the five minors’
detention fundamentally arbitrary.
89.
The Working Group therefore concludes that the detention of Messrs. A, B, C, D and
E, as asylum-seeking unaccompanied migrant children subjected to prolonged administrative
custody without effective possibility of judicial review or consideration of alternatives, was
arbitrary, falling under category IV. The remedies afforded to them were not effective, in
breach of article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (3) and 9 (4)
of the Covenant.
3.
Disposition
90.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Messrs. A, B, C, D and E, being in contravention of
articles 8, 9 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9 and
24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, was arbitrary and falls
within categories I and IV.
91.
The Working Group requests the Government of Greece to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of Messrs. A, B, C, D and E without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
92.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to accord Messrs. A, B, C, D and E an enforceable
right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.
93.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Messrs. A, B, C, D and E and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of their rights.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/64
GE.26-00857
15
94.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
95.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Messrs. A, B,
C, D and E;
(b)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the rights of
Messrs. A, B, C, D and E and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(c)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Greece with its international obligations in line with the
present opinion;
(d)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
96.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
97.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
98.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.25
[Adopted on 11 November 2025]
25 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.