The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors: Voices from the Detention Processes in Greece 9781529222883

Citation preview

THE CRIMINALISATION OF UNACCOMPANIED MIGRANT MINORS VO I CE S F ROM THE DE T E NT I O N PROCES SES I N GREECE IOANNIS PAPADOPOULOS

THE CRIMINALISATION OF UNACCOMPANIED MIGRANT MINORS Voices from the Detention Processes in Greece Ioannis Papadopoulos

First published in Great Britain in 2023 by Bristol University Press University of Bristol 1–​9 Old Park Hill Bristol BS2 8BB UK t: +​44 (0)117 374 6645 e: bup-​[email protected] Details of international sales and distribution partners are available at bristoluniversitypress.co.uk © Bristol University Press 2023 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-​1-​5292-​2286-​9 hardcover ISBN 978-​1-​5292-​2287-​6 ePub ISBN 978-​1-​5292-​2288-​3 ePdf The right of Ioannis Papadopoulos to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of Bristol University Press. Every reasonable effort has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted material. If, however, anyone knows of an oversight, please contact the publisher. The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the author and not of the University of Bristol or Bristol University Press. The University of Bristol and Bristol University Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication. Bristol University Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality. Cover design: Lyn Davies Design Front cover image: Lyn Davies Design Bristol University Press uses environmentally responsible print partners. Printed in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

to my mother and in loving memory of my father

Contents Disclaimer List of Figures and Tables List of Abbreviations List of International Legislation List of National Legislation About the Author Preface

vii ix x xi xiii xvii xviii

1

Introducing the Problem Statement From current aims … … to chapter analysis

2

Children’s Rights and Methodologies Focusing on the right to be heard Achieving a phenomenological result Conducting IPA in the context of migration

13 17 21 26

3

Criminals in Waiting Entering the country irregularly Addressing detention issues

29 34 37

4

Under the Research Lens Exploring crimmigration Voicing children

43 46 50

5

Recruitment and Data Collection Listening to the minors’ insights Witnessing the practitioners’ experience Combining IPA with focus groups Holding a focus group session

56 60 65 67 70

6

Emergent Discussion Themes Concerns on hygiene matters

74 76

v

1 5 8

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Problematic detention setting Absence of proper services Incidents of abusive behaviour

86 90 99

7

Ultimate Reflections Understanding detention Implementing changes

106 110 117

8

Reaching a Conclusion From final remarks … … to future research paths

123 128 132

References Index

136 152

vi

Disclaimer When this project was completed, the most recent national policy on asylum procedures in Greece was at the time regulated by Act 4686 of 2020, which was originally introduced as an overall improvement to the pre-​existing framework. Similarly, guardianship processes for unaccompanied children were based on Act 4554 of 2018. However, at the time of publication, the applicable law on asylum and guardianship procedures had already been replaced by a series of legal Acts, the latest being Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022. Therefore, the research analysis that will take place in the following chapters as well as the references that will be made to the Greek policy will be structured around the international and national legislation that led to the introduction of the legal context which applied at the time this study was conducted, whereas the most recent amendments in the national law will be mentioned in the footnotes. Detailed information regarding said legislation is available in this section of the book, where every legal Act and regulation that is referred upon in this study, both international and national, is listed in chronological order. The newly introduced framework on asylum and guardianship procedures, namely Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022, was initially viewed as a significant advancement to the Greek law, so that the latter would eventually overcome the deficiencies of the past, develop less problematic and certainly more appropriate reception policies for unaccompanied children and also welcome third-​country nationals or stateless persons who would be eligible for international protection. Nevertheless, despite the country’s efforts to reinforce legal certainty and procedural efficiency on a national level in favour of unaccompanied children entering Greece in an irregular manner, the new policy did not introduce any changes or improvements whatsoever to the previous framework concerning this project’s research scope and aims, which will be elaborated upon as the analysis progresses. This confirms that this study is published in a particularly timely manner, as detention processes for unaccompanied children in Greece is an issue that remains to this day practically unaffected despite the latest amendments in the domestic policy, as hereby presented. Hence, to conduct in-depth qualitative vii

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

research on children’s rights in the context of migration is required now more than ever, so that the voice of detained unaccompanied children can finally be heard. Following this premise, it is the author’s sincere hope that this project’s research results and conclusions will be a strong motivation for host countries and Greece in particular to place emphasis on improving their national policies accordingly, so that the right to be heard would be applied correctly in favour of unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon arrival in the country. This way, more evolved and significantly more advanced legal frameworks would be ultimately introduced, equipped with a clear focus towards ending the criminalisation of unaccompanied migrant minors through detention processes on an international level. Ioannis Papadopoulos Manchester, UK, November 2022

viii

List of Figures and Tables Figures 3.1 4.1 8.1

Irregular entry into the Greek context The vicious circle of UAM detention The criminalisation of UAM through detention processes

38 54 127

Tables 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1

UAM –​stage 1 Practitioners –​stage 2 Focus group members –​stage 3 Superordinate and subordinate themes

ix

64 66 72 75

List of Abbreviations Committee Convention CPT CRC Dublin Regulation ECHR ECtHR EKKA FRA HRCR IPA JMD NGO PD RIS UAM UAM detention UN UNHCR UNICEF

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Regulation No 604/​2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) European Court of Human Rights National Centre for Social Solidarity European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis Joint Ministerial Decree Non-​governmental Organisation Presidential Decree Reception and Identification Service Unaccompanied Migrant Minor(s) Detention processes for unaccompanied migrant minors United Nations United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund

x

List of International Legislation Charter of the United Nations (1945)  Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​ docid/​3ae6b3​930.html Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)  United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III). Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3ae​6b37​ 12c.html Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950)  Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3ae6b3​b04.html Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951)  United Nations General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p 137. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3be01b​964.html Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)  United Nations General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p 3. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​ docid/​3ae6b3​8f0.html European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights (1996)  Council of Europe, European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, 25 January 1996, ETS 160. Available from: www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​3de78d​964.html Council Directive 2003/​9/​EC  European Union: Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2003/​9/​EC of 27 January 2003 Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Reception of Asylum Seekers in Member States, 6 February 2003, OJ L. 31/​18–​31/​25; 06.02.2003, 2003/​9/​EC. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3ddcfd​a14.html Council Directive 2005/​85/​EC  European Union: Council of the European Union, Council Directive 2005/​85/​EC of 1 December 2005 on Minimum Standards on Procedures in Member States for Granting and xi

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Withdrawing Refugee Status, 2 January 2006, OJ L 326; 13 December 2005, p 13–​34. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/d​ ocid/4​ 394203​ c4.html Directive 2008/​115/​EC  European Union: Council of the European Union, Directive 2008/​115/​EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-​country nationals, 16 December 2008, OJ L. 348/​98–​348/​107; 16.12.2008, 2008/​115/​EC. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​496​c641​098.html Directive 2011/​95/E ​ U  European Union: Council of the European Union, Directive 2011/​95/​EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-​ country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (recast), 20 December 2011, OJ L. 337/​9–​337/​26; 20.12.2011, 2011/​ 95/​EU. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4f197d​f02.html Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012)  European Union, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012, 2012/​C 326/​02. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3ae6b3​b70.html Directive 2013/​32/E ​ U  European Union: Council of the European Union, Directive 2013/​32/​EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast), 29 June 2013, OJ L. 180/​ 60–​180/​95; 29.06.2013, 2013/​32/​EU. Available from www.refwo​rld. org/​docid/​51d29b​224.html Directive 2013/​33/E ​ U  European Union: Council of the European Union, Directive 2013/​33/​EU of the European Parliament and Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast), 29 June 2013, OJ L. 180/​96–​105/​ 32; 29.06.2013, 2013/​33/​EU. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​ 51d29d​b54.html Regulation No 604/​2013  European Union: Council of the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 604/​2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-​country national or a stateless person (recast), 29 June 2013, OJ L. 180/​31–​180/​59; 29.06.2013, (EU) No 604/​2013. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​51d298​f04.html

xii

List of National Legislation PD 141 of 1991  Responsibilities and actions of members of staff of the Ministry of Public Order and matters of organisation with regard to the offered services (G.G. A’ 58/​30.04.1991) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/421119/p.d.-141-1991 Act 2101 of 1992  Ratification of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (G.G. A’ 192/​02.12.1992) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/226024/nomos-2101-1992 Act 2910 of 2001  Entry and Residence of Aliens into Greek Territory. Acquisition of Greek Citizenship by Naturalisation and Other Provisions (G.G. A’ 91/​02.05.2001) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​ docid/​3b209f​d54.html Act 3386 of 2005  Codification of Legislation on the Entry, Residence and Social Integration of Third-​Country Nationals on Greek Territory (G.G. A’ 212/​23.08.2005) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​ docid/​4c5270​962.html PD 220 of 2007  Transposition into the Greek legislation of Council Directive 2003/​9/​EU from 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (G.G. A’ 251/​13.11.2007) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​49676a​bb2.html PD 90 of 2008  Adaptation of the Greek legislation to the provisions of Council Directive 2005/​85/​EU of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (G.G. A’ 138/​11.07.2008) [Greece]. Available in Greek from https://old.synigoros.gr/?i=foreigner.el.politikoi-pdya.56503 PD 114 of 2010  Establishment of a single procedure for granting the status of refugee or of beneficiary of subsidiary protection to aliens or to stateless persons in conformity with Council Directive 2005/​85/​EU on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (G.G. A’ 195/​22.11.2010) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4cfdfa​df2.html Act 3907 of 2011  Establishment of an Asylum Service and a First Reception Service, transposition into Greek legislation of Directive 2008/​115/​EU on xiii

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-​country nationals and other provisions (G.G. A’ 7/​26.01.2011) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4da6ee​7e2.html PD 113 of 2013  Establishment of a single procedure for granting the status of refugee or of subsidiary protection beneficiary to aliens or to stateless individuals in conformity with Council Directive 2005/​85/​EU ‘on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status’ and other provisions (G.G. A’ 146/​14.06.2013) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​525e84​ae4.html PD 141 of 2013  Transposition into the Greek legislation of Directive 2011/​95/​EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (L 337) on minimum standards for the qualification of third-​country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted (recast) (G.G. A’ 226/​21.10.2013) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​ docid/​54eb4e​774.html Act 4251 of 2014  Code for Migration and Social Integration and other provisions (G.G. A’ 80/​01.04.2014) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​54eb40​114.html Act 4375 of 2016  Organisation and operation of the Asylum Service, the Appeals Authority, the Reception and Identification Service, the establishment of the General Secretariat for Reception, the transposition into Greek legislation of the provisions of Directive 2013/​32/​EU (G.G. A’ 51/​03.04.2016) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​ 573ad4​cb4.html JMD 1982 of 2016  Age assessment procedures for international protection applicants (G.G. B’ 335/​16.02.2016) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.lawspot.gr/nomikes-plirofories/nomothesia/ koini-ypoyrgiki-apofasi-1982-1522016 Act 4540 of 2018  Transposing Directive 2013/​33/​EU of the EU Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 into the Greek Legislation Establishing Standards for the Reception of Applicants for International Protection (recast, L 180/​96/​29.6.2013) and Other Provisions, Amending Law 4251/​2014 (GG A’ 80), Transposing the Directive 2014/​66/​EU of the EU Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the Conditions of Entry and Residence of Third-​Country Nationals in the Framework of an Intra-​Corporate Transfer, Amending Asylum Procedures and Other Provisions (G.G. A’ 91/​22.05.2018) [Greece]. Available from www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​5d47dd​194.html Act 4554 of 2018  Guardianship of unaccompanied children and other provisions (G.G. A’ 130/​18.07.2018) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/384356/nomos-4554-2018 xiv

List of National Legislation

Act 4619 of 2019  Ratification of the Greek Penal Code (G.G. A’ 95/​11.06.2019) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/ nomothesia/document/529099/nomos-4619-2019 Act 4636 of 2019  Amendments of the Greek legislation in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2011/​9 5/​E U of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe of December 13 2011, on ‘International Protection, provisions on the qualification and the status of third-​country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a single status for refugees or persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of protection granted, unification of provisions for the reception of applicants for international protection, the procedure for granting and revoking of the status for international protection, restructuring of judicial protection of asylum seekers and other provisions’ (G.G. A’ 169/​0 1.11.2019) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/572171/ nomos-4636-2019 Constitution of Greece  The Constitution of Greece (G.G. A’ 211/​ 24.12.2019) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.hel​leni​cpar​liam​ent. gr/​Vouli-​ton-E ​ llin ​ on/T ​ o-P ​ olitev​ ma/S​ yntag​ ma/.​ Also, available in English from www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/f3c70a23-7696-49db-9148f24dce6a27c8/001-156%20aggliko.pdf PD 18 of 2020  Renaming and establishment of General and Special Secretariats in the Ministry of Migration and Asylum (G.G. A’ 34/​ 19.02.2020) [Greece]. Available in Greek from https://​migrat​ion.gov. gr/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2020/​05/​ΠΔ-​18.pdf Act 4686 of 2020  Improvement of the migration legislation, amendment of Act 4636 of 2019 (A΄ 169), Act 4375 of 2016 (A΄ 51), Act 4251 of 2014 (Α΄ 80) and other provisions (G.G. A’96/​12.05.2020) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/619937/nomos-4686-2020 JMD 9889 of 2020  Replacing JMD 1982 of 2016 on age assessment procedures for international protection applicants (G.G. B’ 3390/​ 13.08.2020) [Greece]. Available in Greek from https://​migrat​ion.gov. gr/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2021/​04/​9889.pdf Act 4760 of 2020  Regulations of penitentiary legislation, provisions for the Welfare Fund for Employees in the Security Forces and other provisions of the Ministry of Citizen Protection and the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum (G.G. A’ 247/​11.12.2020) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/660230/nomos-4760-2020 Act 4939 of 2022  Ratification of the legislation regarding the reception and international protection of third-​country nationals or stateless persons and temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced foreigners (G.G. A’ 111/​10.06.2022) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/797068/nomos-4939-2022 xv

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Act 4960 of 2022  National Custodial System and Framework for Hosting Unaccompanied Minors and other regulatory provisions of the Ministry Migration and Asylum (G.G. A’ 145/​22.07.2022) [Greece]. Available in Greek from www.kodiko.gr/nomothesia/document/809570nomos4960-2022

xvi

About the Author Dr Ioannis Papadopoulos completed his undergraduate studies in law at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, Faculty of Law, and moved to Maastricht University, the Netherlands, Faculty of Law, where he completed an LL.M. in Forensics, Criminology and Law. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Portsmouth, UK, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Currently he is Lecturer in Criminology at University of Salford, Manchester, UK. His research focuses on immigration detention, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, crimmigration and qualitative methods of analysis. He is particularly interested in criminology and international human rights law with special emphasis placed on children’s rights in the context of migration and detention processes.

xvii

Preface The idea behind this project was originally formed in 2013 as I was already completing my postgraduate studies at Maastricht University. At the time, unaccompanied minors in Greece were facing particularly demanding living conditions, mainly due to the high numbers of migrant populations entering the country in an irregular manner. Therefore, as a young researcher, it wasn’t long before I realised that it would be of vital importance to explore whether the rights of these children were protected adequately upon their arrival. This idea initially emerged as a simple thought and gradually became a socio-​legal concept, which evolved into a structured research proposal and eventually into a doctoral candidacy. Nevertheless, it never ceased to be an adventurous journey. And as such, it included particularly active days and sleepless nights filled with literature reviews, interview transcripts, methodological approaches and in-​depth analyses of international, European and domestic regulations, almost always followed by pressing professional and personal responsibilities, which often led to fatigue and sometimes even to disappointment. However, despite the difficulties that were involved in the process, including the fact that this research was conducted entirely on a self-​funded basis, one of the most crucial lessons that this journey has taught me is that it eventually all comes down to believing in yourself. Hence, this book is nothing more or less than the result of hard work, dedication, commitment and sheer will to shed light on areas of study that had remained to this day highly under-​researched. Most importantly though, it is my true and sincere effort to take the reader by the hand and help them see through my eyes as I share the reality that I witnessed as a field researcher in the migration context in Greece between the years 2016 and 2020. In the course of this project, I travelled throughout the northern parts of the county innumerable times in order to visit detention facilities and reception centres for unaccompanied children that were located at the national borders. This allowed me to examine the procedures that migrant minors were subjected to upon irregular entry, both from a legal as well as an empirical point of view. Additionally, I spent nearly four years in refugee camps, where I conducted my research in safe zones and child-​protection programmes, xviii

Preface

under particularly challenging conditions, alongside professionals working with vulnerable migrant populations. Gradually, I became part of the refugee reception process in Greece; walked the minors’ steps and explored what takes place behind closed doors, namely within detention centres for unaccompanied children. Thus, I feel blessed for being able to contribute to the academic community with this study and I genuinely hope that its findings and methodological approach will lead the way towards an era where the voice of unaccompanied minors in the migration and humanitarian scene is heard as clearly and loudly as possible. From a research point of view, this project is mainly based on interviews of a qualitative character. That being the case, I would never be able to complete the data collection process if it had not been for the participants in all three interview stages, who willingly engaged in this study and provided me with invaluable information. By sharing their experiences, they helped this project come to life and further allowed me to depict the real face of detention processes for unaccompanied migrant minors on paper and for this reason I am deeply thankful to them. Clearly, it would be impossible to follow this path if it were not for the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Portsmouth, UK, that gave me the opportunity to fulfil my academic aspirations by acquiring the position of doctoral candidate. Therefore, I am especially grateful to my supervising committee for assisting me in pursuing my research endeavours and to my assessment committee for holding an excellent viva and for sharing with me crucial feedback that helped me lift the analysis to the next level. Most importantly though, I will be in eternal gratitude to my first supervisor, Dr Aaron Pycroft, for helping me see the beauty in conducting research, for broadening my intellectual horizons and for providing me with insightful and constructive criticism. Thank you, Aaron, for your positive way of thinking, your constant and uninterrupted support and your valuable advice in relation to field research as well as with respect to theoretical and methodological analysis. You are an inspiration and a true mentor. Also, I have been privileged to be part of a publishing network that believed in this project and allowed me to share my research in the form of a monograph. On that account, I am thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their positive and helpful comments which proved to be essential in the process of converting a dissertation into a book, and to Rebecca Tomlinson, Freya Trand, Becky Taylor and Grace Carroll from Bristol University Press, as well as Dawn Preston from Newgen Publishing, who made absolutely sure that the entire submission and publication process went smoothly. Finally, I would certainly not be here today if it were not for the endless support which I received from my family and close friends. You were all there for me through my good and bad moments and I could never thank xix

newgenprepdf

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

you enough for the positive energy and reassurance that you openhandedly, albeit often unknowingly, provided me in the past years. For as long as I can remember, my mother Aikaterini Perdiki and my father Sotirios Papadopoulos were standing by my side, listening to my –​sometimes utterly unrealistic –​goals and dreams and encouraging me nevertheless in taking the next step forward, wherever that would take me. Thank you both for holding my hand when that was all that I needed, but most importantly thank you for always being present and for raising me into the person I am today. I dedicate this book to you with all my heart. Ioannis Papadopoulos Veria, Greece, February 2022

xx

1

Introducing the Problem Statement Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 (hereinafter UN), the issue of protecting and promoting human rights on an international level has been a goal to be achieved, which soon led to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. However, when it comes to safeguarding the rights of children in specific, it was not until 20 November 1989 when the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, hereinafter CRC) was introduced by the UN General Assembly in resolution 44/​25 (Detrick, 1999, p 1), thus creating a landmark in a century-​ long struggle for social reform (Jupp, 1990, p 131). Since then, the CRC has played a vital role in the ratifying Member States’ agenda. This is evident especially in recent times when numbers of asylum-​ seeking individuals, including unaccompanied migrant minors (hereinafter UAM or unaccompanied children), are growing to exceptionally high levels throughout Europe (Van Mol and De Valk, 2016, p 37). It also applies to the case of Greece and is confirmed by data provided on both an international and a national level (see UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 2013,1 hereinafter UNHCR; National Centre for Social Solidarity, 2017,2 2018,3 2019,4 hereinafter EKKA; Eurostat, 20195). 1

2

3

4

5

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2013), Global Trends: War’s Human Cost. Available from https://reliefweb.int/report/world/unhcr-global-trends-2013-wars-human-cost National Centre for Social Solidarity (2017), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 December 2017. Available from www.uni​cef.org/​eca/​sites/​uni​cef.org. eca/​files/​EKKA%20da​shbo​ard%2031-​12-​2017.pdf National Centre for Social Solidarity (2018), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 October 2018. Available from https://​relief​web.int/​rep​ort/​gre​ece/​ situat​ion-​upd​ate-​unacco​mpan​ied-​child​ren-​uac-​gre​ece-​31-​octo​ber-​2018-​enel National Centre for Social Solidarity (2019), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 December 2019. Available from https://​data2.unhcr.org/​en/​docume​ nts/​deta​ils/​73385 Eurostat (2019), Asylum Applicants Considered to be Unaccompanied Minors –​Annual Data. Available from http://​ec.eur​opa.eu/​euros​tat/​web/​produ​cts-​datas​ets/​-​/​tps00​194 1

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

The status of migrant minors in the European continent has become the subject of many communications, which is confirmed by the growing body of research concerning the exploration of the meaning of children’s rights in the context of migration, as conducted by academics, organisations and monitoring mechanisms (Liefaard, 2020). Similarly, a wide range of legislation has been recently introduced in the Greek legal framework, aiming to guarantee the protection and promotion of children’s rights concerning migration-​related issues. These advancements in the applicable law were achieved through the implementation of international regulations and directives in the domestic policy. According to Buchanan and Kallinikaki (2020, p 207), Greece possesses a long tradition in hosting migrant populations. More specifically, the country has been the recipient of different groups of individuals that played significant roles in the socio-​economic and cultural shaping of the society, already since the 19th century. However, the massive influx of asylum seekers in the past decade, coupled with a severe financial crisis that Greece endured at the time, placed the country’s efforts under significant pressure. Resulting to the latter, Greece was found to be incapable of tackling the involved challenges and meeting the needs of these populations in a proper manner, which would entail providing them, the least, with sufficient support and quality services upon arrival in the country. This situation had a negative impact on the public’s perception about asylum-​seeking individuals in general, which led to them being viewed as a national burden. Furthermore, it created tension both on a political as well as on a social level, often followed by incidents of (nano)racism against these groups and also against the humanitarian organisations and citizens that assist them (see Weber and Bowling, 2008, p 366; Giannopoulou and Gill, 2019, p 115; Mbembe, 2019, p 57).6 To this day, all third-​country nationals entering Greece in an irregular manner are immediately apprehended upon arrival and subjected to detention processes facing legal charges for violating the national law on irregular entry, often followed by a deportation order. As will be further discussed, this occurs in spite of the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951, hereinafter Convention), which under Art. 31(1) stipulates that the ‘contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees … coming directly from a territory

6

According to Mbembe (2019, p 58), ‘nanoracism’ is deployed in everyday social relations and is characterised by its aim to stigmatise, injure and humiliate ‘those not considered to be one of us’. Such incidents are evident both at the Greek islands and on the mainland, where local societies often tend to project their social awkwardness on those seeking international protection. The latter is most commonly expressed by protests against the establishment of refugee reception sites or accommodation units for migrant populations in general; see www.bbc.co.uk/​news/​world-​eur​ope-​51204​084 2

Introducing the Problem Statement

where their life or freedom was threatened’, provided that said individuals ‘present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence’. From a children’s rights’ perspective, it has been strongly supported by international human rights instruments that Art. 31(1) of the Convention would also apply in the case of migrant minors. In fact, the deprivation of liberty of an asylum-​seeking refugee or stateless child based on their migration status or that of their parents is considered a violation of the child’s best interests, hence strictly prohibited (UN Human Rights Council Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 2015,7 p 12, hereinafter HRCR). For this reason, according to the UN Committee (2017,8 p 7), ‘[b]‌est-​interests determination procedures should be put in place in any decision that would separate children from their family’. When it comes to applying detention measures to unaccompanied children in particular, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (hereinafter Committee) has concluded that ‘detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of the child being unaccompanied or separated, or on their migratory or residence status, or lack thereof ’, to which end Member States were urged to ‘expeditiously and completely cease the detention of children on the basis of their immigration status’ (2005,9 p 18; 2012,10 p 10, p 18). This issue was also addressed by the EU Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010,11 p 9), the original aim of which was to identify child-​specific

7

8

9

10

11

UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, 6 July 2015, A/​HRC/​30/​37. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​55d2f4​4a4.html UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), 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 on the general principles regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration, 16 November 2017, CMW/​C/​GC/​ 3-​CRC/​C/​GC/​22. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​5a2f9f​c34.html UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 6 (2005): Treatment of Unaccompanied and Separated Children Outside their Country of Origin, 1 September 2005, CRC/​GC/​2005/​6. Available from www.refwor​ ld.org/d​ ocid/4​ 2dd17​ 4b4.html UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report of the 2012 Day of General Discussion on the Rights of All Children in the Context of International Migration, 28 September 2012. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​ 51efb6​fa4.html Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010–​2 014), SEC(2010)534, COM(2010)213. Available from http://​eur-​lex.eur​opa.eu/​Lex​UriS​erv/​Lex​UriS​erv. do?uri=​COM:2010:0213:FIN:en:PDF 3

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

reception practices, along with procedural guarantees which would apply in favour of migrant children, starting from the moment of arrival and until all reception procedures would be completed (EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child, 201112). With regard to the status of unaccompanied children in the Greek context, at the time this study took place, the law dictated that upon irregular entry into the country unaccompanied children were to be placed in a childappropriate environment where their needs would be properly taken care of and ample support would be provided to them.13 However, until very recently, Greece was practically unable to provide unaccompanied children with suitable accommodation upon arrival, which resulted in them being directly placed in detention facilities instead. From a legal point of view, detention processes for unaccompanied migrant minors (hereinafter UAM detention), are not prohibited by the national framework. In detail, according to the Greek law,14 unaccompanied children may be subjected to such processes, albeit only briefly and strictly under specific circumstances. During that time, the needs of unaccompanied children are to be covered until they are further referred to appropriate hosting facilities. Sadly, however, even though detention may apply only if appropriate alternatives are not available and only as a safety measure that would guarantee the minors’ well-​being, this study’s findings revealed that from 2016 to 2020 detention in Greece was being systematically imposed upon minors on the migratory pathway. As a result, unaccompanied children were being placed in unsuitable environments for prolonged periods of time, where they would experience an extensive deprivation of rudimentary human rights. Hence, despite the fact that detention in this case appeared to have a clear purpose, it maintained nevertheless a rather complex character, thus confirming Zedner’s 12

13

14

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child, COM (2011) 60 final. Available from https://www.eumonitor.eu/9353000/1/j9vvik7m1c3gyxp/vimy7m9xf5yc This process was introduced by Art. 31 of Directive 2011/95/EU, which was implemented in the Greek law under Art. 32 of  PD 141 of 2013, as replaced by Art. 32 of Act 4636 of 2019. More specifically, according to Art. 32 of Act 4636 of 2019, ‘Authorities shall ensure the residence of unaccompanied minors … (c) in special centres for the accommodation of minors; or (d) in other accommodation suitable for minors’. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. Originally stipulated in Art. 46(10) of Act 4375 of 2016, as replaced by Act 4540 of 2018 and amended by Act 4636 of 2019 and Act 4686 of 2020. In detail, according to Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, ‘Minors are placed in detention facilities only as a measure of last resort, always in accordance with their best interests and only if it is confirmed that alternative or less restrictive measures cannot be applied instead’. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4686 of 2020 as well as by the recently introduced Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 4

Introducing the Problem Statement

(2015, p 7) opinion that ‘the claim that a measure is primarily preventive does not necessarily take it outside the realm of punishment’. Similar matters have already been discussed in the literature, whereas both international and national research has been conducted and reports have been issued in the recent past concerning the placement of unaccompanied children in detention (see Bhabha and Young, 1999; Bhabha, 2014; Greek Ombudsman, 2005,15 2006,16 2003–​2011,17 2014,18 2016,19 201720), the length of such measures and the appointment of legal guardians in favour of unaccompanied children (for example, Skordas and Sitaropoulos, 2004; Fili and Xythali, 2017), as well as the recognition of legal competence and the broader consideration of their interests (De Bondt, 2019). Nevertheless, when it comes to protecting the rights of detained UAM, to this day contemporary research has dramatically overlooked certain socio-​ legal aspects of unaccompanied children experiencing detention processes upon irregular entry into Greece, instead of being subjected to a context that would guarantee the promotion of their rights through a form of custody of a protective nature. These issues will be further explored in depth as this study progresses.

From current aims … Starting from the moment when unaccompanied children enter Greece in an irregular manner due to incomplete or false travel documents or even due to a complete absence of such, this qualitative study looks into the procedural

15

16

17

18

19

20

Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2005), Special Report on Administrative Detention and Deportation of Migrant Minors, October 2005. Available in Greek from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​docs/​203​224.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2006), Conclusions on the situation of unaccompanied minors in Pagani-​Mitilini: Report on administrative detention and removal of minors from October 2005. Available in Greek from http://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​ Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2003–​2011), Parallel Report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child –​Findings and recommendations of the Independent Authority ‘the Greek Ombudsman’ on the implementation of Children’s Rights in Greece, April 2012. Available from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​?i=​childr​ens-​r ig​hts.en.rece​ntin​terv​enti​ ons.82331 Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2014), Report after the monitoring visit at Amygdaleza Detention Centre. Available in Greek from http://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​ resour​ces/​ekt​hesi​_​aft​opsi​as_​a​migd​alez​a_​2-​18-​2014.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2016), Intervention of the Greek Ombudsman regarding unaccompanied minor refugees and migrants, 30 March 2016. Available in Greek from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​dt-​asyn​odey​toi-​anili​koi-​3032​016.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2017), Press Release: Unacceptable conditions for detaining unaccompanied minors in northern Greece, 31 July 2017. Available from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​press-​rele​ase-​-​4.pdf 5

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

steps that succeed the arrival of unaccompanied children in the country and examines the processes that they are subjected to. On that account, focus is placed specifically on the context of UAM detention, as it applied in the Greek domestic policy between the years 2016 and 2020. Hence, through the use of interviews, voice is given to practitioners both individually and in the form of a focus group, but most importantly to unaccompanied children, who elaborate extensively on the character of these proceedings, thus allowing for a thorough analysis to take place with respect to the conditions that detained UAM endured at the time. Therefore, this study’s contribution to knowledge is initially based on revealing the reality that unaccompanied children experienced during detention in Greece, accurately understanding the context that they were subjected to and examining in detail how the law applied in practice. Following the latter and stemming from the fact that irregular entry into the country to this day is considered to be a violation of the national law, this study will examine the link between UAM detention in Greece and the crimmigration debate. As regards the origins of the term ‘crimmigration’, Stumpf (2006; 2013) used this term aiming to portray the tendency for immigration law and criminal law to be merged in both substance and procedure. This means that the theory behind crimmigration suggests the existence of immigration-​crime offences, including the irregular entry into a host country, which is represented by a breach in immigration law. In fact, Kemp (2019, p 250) argues that immigration detention in general must be viewed as ‘a cornerstone of a distinct crimmigration system’. Nevertheless, even though the criminalisation of illegal migration is well documented, Van der Leun and Van der Woude (2013, p 43) support that ‘a thorough discussion on what constitutes crimmigration and how this phenomenon should be studied is still missing in the academic world’. So far, existing research has placed emphasis on the various forms of crimmigration on a legislative and procedural level, including the criminalisation of illegal stay as well as issues regarding administrative detention and deportation on the basis of an immigrant’s criminal background (for example, Van der Woude et al, 2014; Pisani, 2016). However, the case of unaccompanied children being apprehended and placed in detention upon arrival in host countries as well as certain aspects of the detention setting that they experience during that time have been considerably neglected. Therefore, this study will look beyond judicial concepts and mere characterisations of socio-​political phenomena, aiming to bring the reality from within detention facilities for unaccompanied children in Greece to the surface. That being so, the context of UAM detention will be placed under the critical lens of crimmigration. In addition, the author will take one step further and explore whether the rights of unaccompanied children were safeguarded during detention. To 6

Introducing the Problem Statement

this end, an assessment will occur with respect to whether the right to be heard, as enshrined in Art. 12 CRC, was applied correctly in the minors’ favour. Consequently, the study will review if detained UAM in Greece were ever given the opportunity to express themselves in an open manner as regards the judicial and administrative proceedings that affected them at the time this research was conducted. As a result, the legal scope of UAM detention will be analysed in depth. More specifically, as will be presented in the following chapters, this study will focus on examining whether unaccompanied children were being subjected to detention processes for violating the national law on irregular entry, or simply if detention acted in the form of a temporary replacement measure to an otherwise protective setting, as the law originally intended. Thus, in order to examine if unaccompanied children were able to be heard, emphasis will be placed on assessing whether UAM detention in Greece has an administrative character according to Art. 12(2) CRC, which is also an issue that contemporary research has left unnoticed. Under this premise, this project will move beyond the tokenistic21 concept of voicing children (Lundy, 2007, p 938), towards a new era of positive change regarding reception processes for migrant minors. This will further bring forward an area of study which has not to this point been dealt with, namely the right of unaccompanied children to be heard in a free manner concerning the detention processes that they experience upon arrival in Greece. These issues will be elaborated upon as the analysis progresses and an exploration will also occur with respect to the legal mechanisms that give voice to children, followed by an assessment on whether detained UAM in Greece are in reality silenced when they should be heard instead. In order to achieve the set aims, this study’s methodology will be based on Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (hereinafter IPA). More specifically, Heidegger’s theory of analysing the detailed exploration of the participants’ personal lived experiences (Smith, 2004, p 40), which is centred around a presentation and discussion of generic experiential themes, paired with the researcher’s own interpretation (Pietkiewicz and Smith, 2014, p 7). As will be thoroughly demonstrated in the next chapter, Heidegger introduced the ‘phenomenological element’ to qualitative analysis, according to which the researcher is expected to study human experience on three interrelated levels, namely the experience itself, how things appear to individuals and the meaning that individuals give to their experiences. In 21

According to Lundy (2007, p 938), a decorative participation of children on the matters that affect them ‘is not only in breach of Article 12 but can be counterproductive’. This is exactly the reason why the right to be heard, which will be discussed in Chapter 2, has been widely criticised in the literature. 7

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

fact, it was Heidegger’s theory on ‘hermeneutics’ that established the concept that human experience must be accessed by the researcher strictly through the participants’ accounts and their own understanding of these experiences, coupled with the researcher’s own account. In this study, the author aims to understand the reality that unaccompanied children experienced in detention. For this reason, the ‘double hermeneutic’ process of IPA will be applied, which is based on the premise that participants are trying to make sense of their world, while the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world (see Eatough and Smith, 2008, p 198; Smith et al, 2009, p 3). Thus, it is only by giving voice to participants that an exploration can take place concerning the ways in which unaccompanied children experienced detention after arriving in Greece, followed by a discussion on how they perceived the support that was offered to them at arrival and the rights which were granted to them during detention. The proposed methodological approach will allow for this study’s research aims to be subjected to close scrutiny, and the dynamics of the Greek legal framework will be analysed accordingly. That being said, the positionality of detained UAM within the crimmigration debate will be explored, and an examination will occur on whether the right to be heard is correctly applied in favour of unaccompanied children during detention. As a result, this project will focus on understanding detention conditions and assessing how the letter of the law is translated into practice when it comes to safeguarding the rights of unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon irregular entry into the country. Hence, by introducing the use of IPA in contemporary socio-​legal and criminological research in order to explore the status of detained UAM in Greece, a novel contribution will be made to the existing body of research. More specifically, through the use of semi-structured and openended interviews grounded in interpretative phenomenology, this study will go beyond a legal analysis regarding the reasons and causes for UAM detention, as it will focus on the humanitarian aspect of facilitating the positive adjustment, integration and promotion of children’s rights in the context of migration.

… to chapter analysis This book comprises eight chapters, each consisting of separate sub-​chapters, the current being the introduction to the study and the last chapter being its conclusion, which incorporates the author’s final remarks and thoughts on how this study’s findings can lead to new research paths. At this point, a brief summary of the book’s structure will be provided, along with details concerning each individual chapter respectively. 8

Introducing the Problem Statement

Following the introduction, Chapter 2, which is entitled ‘Children’s Rights and Methodologies’, will have as starting point the issue of protecting and promoting the rights of children on an international level. So, the forming process of the CRC will be initially presented, coupled with information concerning its legal character and implementation within the domestic policy of the ratifying Member States and Greece in particular. Subsequently, emphasis will be placed on the core provisions of the CRC. To this end, the ‘best interests of the child’ principle of Art. 3 CRC will be initially elaborated upon, followed by a discussion on additional provisions which are expected to apply when it comes to unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon arrival in host countries. Eventually, focus will be added on the right of children to express their views openly and be heard in all judicial and administrative proceedings that affect them. Therefore, the importance of correctly applying the right to be heard in favour of detained UAM in the international migration setting will be stressed. In the next parts of the chapter, this study’s research methodology will be presented. Hence, by discussing the main principles and aims of phenomenology, a demonstration will take place regarding its theoretical background and basic elements. More specifically, detailed information will be provided at this point concerning the different schools in the area of phenomenological research, along with an extensive literature review on the matter. The final part will draw attention to the reasons why Heidegger’s version of ‘hermeneutic’ or ‘interpretative’ phenomenology was preferred over other qualitative approaches as the ideal method for conducting interviews with unaccompanied children and practitioners and further addressing this project’s research aims. Chapter 3, which is entitled ‘Criminals in Waiting’, will explore procedural matters regarding UAM detention processes in the Greek framework. For that reason, starting with a definition of the term ‘unaccompanied minor’, references will be made to the law and the literature and specific matters concerning the vulnerability of unaccompanied children will be brought to the table, followed by a discussion on guardianship procedures. Lastly, statistical information will be provided with respect to the status of unaccompanied children in Greece, based on data analysis conducted by EKKA at the time this study took place. Before proceeding to exploring detention issues, a discussion will take place with respect to the legal context that regulates the issue of irregular entry into the country. At this point, an in-​depth review of the applicable law will occur and the pathway that asylum-​seeking individuals follow upon arrival will be demonstrated, coupled with a review of the processes that unaccompanied children are subjected to. Following the latter, a presentation will commence with respect to the reception procedures that apply in the case of migrant minors. Subsequently, 9

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

by focusing on the need for unaccompanied children to be placed in suitable accommodation as soon as they arrive in Greece, a thorough analysis of the national law on protective custody and detention will be performed. Thus, this study will examine the circumstances under which detention would apply as well as describe its context and the services which should be available to unaccompanied children in case they are subjected to such processes. In Chapter 4, the study’s aims will be placed ‘Under the Research Lens’. To this end, a discussion will take place as regards the current gaps in contemporary research as well as how this project will be a novel contribution to knowledge. So, the crimmigration debate and the theoretical underpinnings of crimmigration will be initially presented, followed by a thorough literature review concerning the analysis of the term and the existing research as regards its various forms. After clarifying its crucial elements and characteristics, the study will add emphasis on the need to examine whether UAM detention processes in Greece place unaccompanied children within the scope of crimmigration. The second part will look into the right of unaccompanied children to express themselves openly during detention with respect to the judicial and administrative matters that affect them. Therefore, the centre of attention will be the correct application of Art. 12 CRC. Thus, references will be made to the literature and the researcher’s role in assisting unaccompanied children towards describing their experiences will be highlighted, along with the difficulties which are involved in the process. Ultimately, a presentation and analysis of the ‘vicious circle of UAM detention’ will follow, as originally introduced by the author. Chapter 5 will provide the reader with practical details concerning this project’s recruitment strategy and data collection process. This part will be particularly helpful to practitioners and academics who plan to or currently conduct research with vulnerable migrant populations and children in specific. Hence, comprehensive information will be shared on how IPA was applied in each interview stage respectively. As regards the first interview stage, focus will be placed on the complexity factor that is included in the process of interviewing children. For this reason, a step-​by-​step analysis will be included, concerning the way in which the author approached this population and built trust before proceeding to holding interviews. In addition, information will be shared regarding the participants’ background and the questions that were addressed to them in the context of the discussion.22 A similar analysis will take place with respect to the followed process during the second interview stage, where 22

The first round of questions focused on gathering demographic data and the second round was specifically aimed towards addressing this study’s research aims. Detailed information regarding the followed interviewing process will be provided in Chapter 5. 10

Introducing the Problem Statement

practitioners participated individually, as well as during the third stage, where professionals with work experience in the humanitarian context participated in the form of a focus group. Leading up to the third interview stage, the author will explore the relation between IPA and focus groups in contemporary research. Thus, by performing a rigorous literature review on the matter, the difference of opinion among scholars will be demonstrated at this point. Similar to the first interview stage, the author’s methodology will be presented in detail, coupled with a discussion on how practitioners assisted greatly by sharing their perspectives and how their responses strengthened this study’s findings. Lastly, detailed information will be provided concerning the participants’ background and the topics that were discussed. Chapter 6 will be structured in four consecutive parts, according to the formed superordinate discussion topics that emerged during the analysis of the interview results. More specifically, upon completion of the interviewing process, the participants’ responses to the research questions were organised into groups based on similarities among them, as per the IPA guidelines. This allowed for specific discussion themes to be identified, which were then clustered into higher-​order and sub-​themes. In detail, the superordinate discussion topics include issues on hygiene matters; the overall context of detention; the complete lack of services for detained UAM; and the abusive treatment that unaccompanied children endured in detention. Each theme will be presented and discussed thoroughly, followed by quotes from the participants. As a result, the study’s key findings will be illustrated in a comprehensive and analytical style, coupled with the author’s input with respect to each individual theme respectively. Chapter 7 will be based on the participants’ ‘Ultimate Reflections’, which were shared as each interview session reached its end. Therefore, after referring to the setting and conditions of UAM detention, which is discussed in depth in the previous chapter, the practitioners’ understanding with respect to the reasons behind the use of such processes for unaccompanied children in Greece will be addressed. Also, the professionals’ insights will be presented at this point concerning the role of non-​governmental organisations (hereinafter NGOs) in safeguarding the rights of detained UAM in the migration context, followed by their thoughts on whether practitioners working in the humanitarian sector can assist towards the same direction. As the analysis progresses, the discussion will move on to the right to be heard. Therefore, the participants’ responses throughout all three interview stages on whether Art. 12 CRC was applied correctly in favour of detained UAM in Greece at the time this research was conducted, will be demonstrated. The second part of the chapter will be based on the input of participants regarding the changes that they would implement to the context of detention, followed by their suggestions on alternative measures. 11

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Similar to the previous chapter, the participants’ statements will be presented in the form of quotes, coupled with the author’s own account. Hence, a phenomenological review of the findings will take place, concentrating on how the voice of participants allowed for awareness to be gained. The study’s research conclusions will be summarised and addressed in Chapter 8. Thus, stemming from the interview results, the positionality of detained UAM in Greece within the context of crimmigration will be initially assessed. Moreover, a conclusion will be reached on whether the national framework in Greece views UAM detention as an administrative process according to Art. 12 CRC and consequently if the right to be heard was applied correctly in the minors’ favour at the time. The author’s final remarks regarding this project’s findings will follow, with emphasis placed on safeguarding the vulnerable status of unaccompanied children throughout reception proceedings. Conclusively, a concise presentation of the recent advancements in the Greek law and practice regarding migration-​related issues will succeed. Starting with a commentary on the introduction of a new policy in 2020, the recent changes in the national framework will be elaborated upon with respect to whether the status of unaccompanied children in detention and the overall context of UAM detention in general was in any way improved. The latter will be followed by the author’s concluding comments about this study’s contribution to contemporary knowledge, along with recommendations for academics and practitioners on how its findings, as well as its methodological approach, can be used as the basis for future research projects in the field of migration studies.

12

2

Children’s Rights and Methodologies Based on the premise that ‘childhood is the most intensively governed sector of personal existence’ (Rose, 1989, p 121), the CRC emerged from the drafting process as a treaty based entirely on the rights of children. Hence, it successfully incorporated civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, previous declarations and international regulations (for example, Cohen, 1989, p 1448; Todres, 1999, p 166; Naskou-​Perraki, 2012, p 39) without segregating the importance of these rights, unlike other human rights instruments (Gomien, 1989, p 162). It has been supported by scholars (see Hammarberg, 1990, p 99; Goldson and Muncie, 2012, p 48) that the CRC adopted a coherent human rights approach by primarily focusing on the legal interests of children and their rights as individuals.1 To this end, since its introduction it was perceived as a transformative guiding policy (Melton, 2005, p 919), with a set of highly effective provisions. However, it did not gain support quickly (Johnson, 1989, p 168), as at first there seemed to be no pressing need for it, nor was there a universal consensus on it being introduced. Interestingly, even though the CRC is considered to be the longest UN human rights treaty in force as well as the most ratified international convention in history, it is also known as the most violated one. That is because according

1

According to the Committee (2011, p 23), ‘A child rights approach is one which furthers the realization of the rights of all children as set out in the Convention by developing the capacity of duty bearers to meet their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil rights (art. 4) and the capacity of rights holders to claim their rights, guided at all times by the rights to non-​discrimination (art. 2), consideration of the best interests of the child (art. 3, para. 1), life, survival and development (art. 6), and respect for the views of the child (art. 12)’. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 13: The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence, 18 April 2011, CRC/​C/​GC/​ 13. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4e6da4​922.html 13

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

to the literature (such as Todres, 1999, p 192; Pinheiro, 2006, p 33; Defence for Children International, 2007, p 17;2 Kilkelly, 2008, p 188; Muncie, 2008, p 111; Goldson and Muncie, 2009, p 35; Hammarberg, 2009, p 4), its provisions do not include accurate application guidelines, which has led to its incorrect embodiment in the legal framework of the ratifying Member States and to a point where national policies are in direct contradiction to its context.3 The latter corroborates the Committee’s (1990,4 p 2) early instructions towards the contracting countries to decide on their own ‘which means are the most appropriate under the circumstances with respect to each of the rights’. Additionally, when it comes to its legal scope, the CRC cannot be contemplated as a powerful legal instrument (see McSweeney, 1993, p 486; Verhellen, 2000, p 107), despite its binding character upon the States that chose to ratify it. Therefore, the CRC provisions are not viewed as legally enforceable rights (see Fortin, 2003, p 46; Bainham, 2013, p 96), rather as declarations and guidelines towards a reformation process for national policies. In other words, the CRC establishes minimum standards for the protection of children in vulnerable situations and invites Member States to incorporate these to their legislation and provide effective remedies for their breach. After all, ‘the only obligation incurred by signing the Convention is a State’s promise to review the treaty with an eye toward future ratification’ (Cohen and Davidson, 1990, pp iii–iv). It was for this reason that the UN introduced the ‘Committee’ as a separate instrument in the form of a supervision mechanism (for example, Goldson and Kilkelly, 2013, p 351; Muncie, 2013, p 54), dedicated specifically to monitor the accurate translation of the CRC into each Member State’s legal context.5 To this day, more than 30 years after its adoption, complete implementation of the CRC within the domestic policy of the ratifying States has not yet been fully achieved, rather remains an ongoing process instead. In fact, as Mitchell (2013, p 510) notes, ‘for those still interested in a fuller implementation

2

3

4

5

Defence for Children International (2007), From Legislation to Action? Trends in Juvenile Justice Systems across 15 Countries. Geneva: Defence for Children International. Available from https://s​ ilo.tips/​downl​oad/​from-​legi​slat​ion-​to-​act​ion-​tre​nds-​in-​juven​ile-​just​ice-​syst​ ems-​acr​oss-​15-​count​r ie# This has also been supported by Lundy et al (2013, p 443), arguing that international human rights treaties do not specify how Member States are expected to act in order to fulfil their obligations, but rather require them to take all necessary measures in order to achieve the highest possible level of enactment. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1990), General Comment No. 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2, Para. 1, of the Covenant), 14 December 1990, E/​1991/​23. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​453​8838​e10.html The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child requires Member States to report at five-​ year intervals, outlining the implementation progress of the CRC within their national frameworks as well as issues that may emerge during this process. 14

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

and practice of children’s rights in any location anywhere in the world, it is always a half-​full, and in the same moment, a half-​empty glass’. The primary focus of the CRC is the ‘best interests of the child’,6 which is considered to be the overarching principle in the care and welfare of the world’s children (Hammarberg, 1990, p 99). Also, it has been claimed by Bullis (1991, p 244) that the CRC not only elevates the child’s best interests to a higher level, but it does so with some specificity. Following this premise, the Committee (2013,7 p 3) acknowledged that Art. 3 CRC is a right and a rule of procedure. As such, it recognises that children are independent and autonomous holders of rights and promotes their best interests to being a matter of crucial importance both for public authorities and private institutions.8 Nevertheless, despite the efforts towards the creation of a more child-​ friendly justice system originally driven by the Council of Europe (European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, 19969), the Committee (2008,10 p 7) has noted that in practice the ‘best interests of the child’ principle is not reflected as a primary consideration among the legislative and policy matters that affect children, including those in the area of juvenile justice and

6

7

8

9

10

According to Art. 3(1) CRC, ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’, whereas Art. 3(2) instructs Member States ‘to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-​being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures’. Finally, Art. 3(3) CRC stipulates that ‘States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff as well as competent supervision’. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 14 on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (art. 3, para. 1), 29 May 2013, CRC/​C/​GC/​14. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​51a84b​5e4.html In detail, the Committee (2013, p 3) supports that Art. 3 CRC ‘is aimed at ensuring both the full and effective enjoyment of the rights recognised in the Convention and the holistic development of the child’, for which reason it ‘requires the development of a rights-​based approach, engaging all actors, to secure the holistic physical, psychological, moral and spiritual integrity of the child and promote his or her human dignity’. According to Art. 1(2) of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights, ‘The object of the present Convention is, in the best interests of children, to promote their rights, to grant them procedural rights and to facilitate the exercise of these rights by ensuring that children are, themselves or through other persons or bodies, informed and allowed to participate in proceedings affecting them before a judicial authority’. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: concluding observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 20 October 2008, CRC/​ C/​GBR/​CO/​4. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4906d1​d72.html 15

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

migration. As a result, ‘institutionalised obstructions’ to the implementation of the CRC had been identified in the past (Goldson and Muncie, 2012, p 51). In practice, such incidents were expressed as serious violations of children’s rights within specific juvenile justice systems, mainly caused by the inexistence of comprehensive national policies. When it comes to the case of Greece in particular, the country signed the CRC on 26 January 1990 and ratified it with Act 2101 of 1992, without making any reservations as regards its content. Nevertheless, the country assumed the responsibility to continuously take all necessary measures for the establishment and the advocacy of the rights which are depicted in the CRC provisions (Naskou‑Perraki et al, 2002, p 46). As a result, since its ratification, the CRC has been implemented in the national legal and procedural framework, taking precedence over any conflicting domestic regulations. Gradually, a series of laws were introduced and Greece shaped its national policy accordingly in order to incorporate protective measures for children in different settings and judicial proceedings, such as by allowing minors to express their opinions in custody cases (Papademetriou, 2007, p 96, p 109). This is also evident on a constitutional level, as even though the CRC is not specifically referred to in the Greek Constitution, the latter encompasses ‘solemn proclamations’ concerning the protection and promotion of children’s rights on a national level (Naskou-​Perraki, 2012, p 39). With respect to safeguarding the rights of children in the context of migration, the ‘best interests of the child’ principle was originally implemented in the Greek framework under PD 220 of 2007,11 which was the first legal statute that set the standards for migrant minors to have their vulnerable status and needs taken into consideration.12 However, at the time, no reference was made in the law regarding the rights of unaccompanied children during detention.

11

12

At the time this research project was completed, PD 220 of 2007 had already been replaced by a series of legal Acts, the most recent being Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, whereas at the time of publication Act 4636 of 2019 had been replaced by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. In its original form, Art. 12 of PD 220 of 2007 focused on ‘Material reception conditions and health care’. Under this premise, Art. 17 stipulated that during reception procedures, ‘the competent authorities and local administrations shall take care to provide special treatment to applicants belonging to vulnerable groups such as minors, in particular unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence’, whereas according to Art. 18(1), ‘The best interest of the child is a primary consideration for competent authorities when applying the provisions relating to minor applicants’. These provisions remained unaffected despite the numerous amendments in the Greek framework since their introduction, including the most recent policy on asylum and guardianship procedures at the time of publication, namely Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 16

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

Interestingly, it was not until 2016 when Act 437513 was introduced in the national policy, which addressed this particular matter. More specifically, it focused on the issue of irregular entry into the country and the subsequent arrest of asylum-​seeking individuals, including unaccompanied children, and further set the framework concerning the services that minors would be entitled to in case they were subjected to detention processes upon arrival. These issues will be explored and elaborated upon in depth in the following chapters.

Focusing on the right to be heard The CRC consists of 54 articles which are not to be examined on an individual basis but closely to one another. Therefore, given that the term ‘child’ ‘masks a wide range of categories of children’ (Morrow and Richards, 1996, p 90), the CRC aims at protecting their rights regardless of their country of origin, ethnicity or migrant status. This is also supported by the HRCR (2015,14 p 26), stating that ‘[a]‌ll decisions and actions taken in relation to non-​nationals below the age of 18, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, shall be guided by the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration’. Hence, under the scope of safeguarding the rights of children in different settings, when it comes to unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon arrival in host countries several CRC provisions are expected to apply. These include Art. 27 CRC on the right of children to a standard of living adequate for their overall development (Kids Behind Bars, 2003,15 p 12) as well as Art. 22 CRC, the latter being the first legally binding acknowledgement of the unique needs and risks of refugee and

13

14

15

Since its introduction, Act 4375 of 2016 has been amended and replaced numerous times by a series of legal Acts. In detail, when this research project was completed, Act 4375 of 2016 had already been replaced by Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, which will be presented and discussed in the context of this study. Subsequently, at the time of publication Act 4636 of 2019 had been replaced by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court, 6 July 2015, A/​HRC/​30/​37. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​55d2f4​4a4.html Kids Behind Bars (2003), A Study on Children in Conflict with the Law: Towards Investing in Prevention, Stopping Incarceration and Meeting International Standards. Amsterdam: Defence for Children International, pp 21–​31. Available from https://​schol​arwo​rks.iupui.edu/​ bitstre​ am/h ​ and​ le/1​ 805/3​ 408/R ​ appor​ tKBB ​ tota​ al.pdf;jse​ssio​nid=​2CDD7​5A4F​0E15​8447​ D692​FCC0​948E​339?seque​nce=​1 17

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

asylum-​seeking children (Bierwirth, 2005, p 101), based on the prohibition of discrimination of Art. 2 CRC.16 In detail, Art. 22(1) CRC instructs Member States to take all necessary actions in order to cover the needs of migrant minors from the moment they enter a foreign country aiming to acquire international protection.17 For this purpose, Art. 22(2) CRC focuses on the cooperation of host countries with the UN and NGOs in order to ensure that children eventually reunite with family members residing in European countries, according to the provisions of Regulation No. 604 of 2013 (hereinafter Dublin Regulation18). The protection of Art. 22 CRC extends to the material conditions and treatment of children within detention, where they are often subjected to violence and inappropriate circumstances (Del Gaudio and Phillips, 2018, p 6) due to the absence of child-​friendly policies. Therefore, if minors are ever subjected to such conditions, Art. 22 CRC provides the basis for additional actions to be taken so that the effective application of the CRC would be guaranteed in their favour. Most importantly though, the CRC aims to ensure that the views of children are expressed and respected in an undisturbed way, regardless of their age, which is about protecting their dignity and personality when decisions are taken for them.

16

17

18

According to Art. 2(2) CRC, ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members’. The reason behind the placed emphasis on the principle of nondiscrimination lies on the fact that to subject refugee children to discriminatory treatment in the country of refuge is a sensitive, albeit common, matter. According to Art. 2(h) of Directive 2011/​95/​EU, an application for international protection is ‘a request made by a third-​country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection, outside the scope of this Directive, that can be applied for separately’. After a series of amendments in the national law, this provision was implemented in the Greek framework under Art. 2(b) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020 at the time this research was completed, whereas at the time of publication it remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. More specifically, Art. 6(3) dictates that ‘Member States shall closely cooperate with each other and shall, in particular, take due account of the following factors: (a) family reunification possibilities ...’. The Dublin Regulation introduced the term ‘country of first entry’ to the European context. In detail, according to Art. 3(2), the country of ‘first entry’ is expected to consider and decide upon the individual’s application for international protection, unless there are ‘substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions’, in which case another Member State would be responsible to decide. This framework added significant pressure to countries such as Greece, which, because of their location, are expected to process massive numbers of asylum applications submitted by individuals arriving at the borders. 18

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

Under this premise, the Committee (2003, p 4;19 2009,20 p 21) placed emphasis on Art. 12 CRC,21 according to which, children just like adults hold rights and must be given opportunities to form their views in a free manner.22 The latter would apply without the need for children to have complete knowledge of the issue under discussion (Lundy, 2007, p 935), as long as they have a sufficient understanding in order to form an opinion. For this reason, the Committee (2009,23 p 20) has strongly supported that ‘the child has a right to direction and guidance, which have to compensate for the lack of knowledge, experience and understanding of the child and are restricted by his or her evolving capacities’. After all, according to Sutherland (2014, p 171), by acknowledging that children have their own formed opinions concerning the matters that affect them, it is evident that each child holds a separate identity which must be respected. In this regard, scholars (such as Hodgkin and Newell, 2007, p 150; Lansdown, 2016, p 31) support that the right to be heard should be considered as a right to participation and not self-​determination, as it concerns the involvement of children in the decision-​making process while showing consideration for their ‘evolving capacities’. Similarly, Krappmann (2010, p 501) argues that Art. 12 CRC is unique in the sense that it encompasses the idea that children have the right to be heard when decisions are taken and especially when said decisions have

19

20

21

22

23

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 5 (2003): General measures of implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 27 November 2003, CRC/​GC/​2003/​5. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​453​8834​f11.html UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 12 (2009): The right of the child to be heard, 20 July 2009, CRC/​C/​GC/​12. Available from www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​4ae562​c52.html According to Art. 12(1) CRC, ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’, whereas according to Art. 12(2) CRC, ‘For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law’. According to the Committee (2009, p 22), ‘The child has the right “to express those views freely”. “Freely” means that the child can express her or his views without pressure and can choose whether or not she or he wants to exercise her or his right to be heard. “Freely” also means that the child must not be manipulated or subjected to undue influence or pressure. “Freely” is further intrinsically related to the child’s “own” perspective: the child has the right to express her or his own views and not the views of others’. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4ae562​c52.html UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 12 (2009): The right of the child to be heard, 20 July 2009, CRC/​C/​GC/​12. Available from www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​4ae562​c52.html 19

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

immediate effect on them. This applies especially in cases that fall under the scope of Art. 12(2) CRC, which focuses on the right of children to form their own views with respect to judicial and administrative proceedings,24 as will be discussed later in this study. According to Bhabha and Young (1999, p 96), Art. 12 CRC was originally introduced in order to give the opportunity to children to freely express their opinions under suitable circumstances, with their age and maturity taken into consideration. On this issue, the Committee (2006,25 p 215) supported that ‘age should not be a barrier to the child’s right to participate fully in the justice process’. This means that forming a view is not strictly interrelated with the child’s biological age, but can be easily influenced by experiences, social and cultural expectations, levels of support, as well as information which is essential, as is the precondition of the child’s clarified decisions.26 Adding to the latter, Thomas (2007, p 199) notes that every child has the right to be heard and participate in the decision-making process, whereas Parkinson and Cashmore (2008, p 4) argue that setting an age limit to determine the child’s capability to form their own opinion would contradict the developmental psychologists’ findings on the gradual development of children’s capacities over time. Therefore, under the scope of Art. 12 CRC, a child should not be considered as immature, incompetent or incomplete thus requiring protection, rather a responsible and complete individual even if sometimes in need of protection (Krappmann, 2010, p 502). In fact, Herbots and Put (2015, p 175) are of the opinion that Art. 12 CRC definitively proves that children have competences, however limited, and for this reason they must be recognised as full members of the society, in spite of not yet having been given full responsibilities. Hence, it is obvious that to this day, the overall protective character of the CRC has been widely referred to in the literature, along with the issue of giving due weight not just to the views which are directly expressed by

24

25

26

Under this premise, Art. 12 CRC should be viewed in accordance with the adult’s obligation of Art. 5 CRC to provide children with adequate support towards exercising their rights and should be also balanced against the ‘best interests of the child’ principle of Art. 3 CRC as well as against Art. 13 CRC, which refers to the right of children to seek, receive, and impart information (Lundy et al, 2011, p 720, p 732). UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Report on the forty-​third session, 29 September 2006, CRC/​C/​43/​3. Available from https://​dig​ital​libr​ary.un.org/​rec​ord/​605​ 694#rec​ord-​files-​colla​pse-​hea​der Hence, as the child matures, his or her views shall have increased weight in the assessment of his or her best interests, to which end ‘States must ensure appropriate arrangements, including representation, when appropriate, for the assessment of their best interests’ (see Committee, 2009, p 10; Committee, 2013, p 11). 20

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

children, but also to their wishes, interests and goals (for example, Bhabha and Young, 1999, p 96; Krappmann, 2010, p 502; McCafferty, 2017, p 327). Nevertheless, when it comes to safeguarding the rights of children in the context of migration, contemporary research appears to have neglected to perform an assessment on whether Art. 12 CRC applies in the case of unaccompanied children being subjected to detention processes upon arrival in host countries and Greece in particular. Towards exploring the latter, this study will highlight the importance of correctly applying the right to be heard in the case of detained UAM in the Greek framework. In addition, by looking into Art. 12(2) CRC concerning the right of children to be heard in judicial and administrative proceedings that affect their status, emphasis will be placed on whether UAM detention in Greece is viewed as an administrative process, in which case the need for the voice of unaccompanied children to be heard will be confirmed. However, before performing a thorough analysis of the national policy, which will take place in the following chapter, this project’s methodology will be discussed at this point. More specifically, the theoretical background of phenomenological research will be initially presented, followed by detailed information regarding the approach that was preferred by the author for holding interviews with unaccompanied children and practitioners in the migration setting, as well as for addressing this study’s research aims.

Achieving a phenomenological result This study’s methodology is based on Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, which has been described in the literature (Baillie et al, 2000, p 391) as interpretations that are bounded by the participants’ abilities to articulate their experiences and thereafter as the researcher’s ability to reflect and analyse the provided information. Originally, IPA has its roots in phenomenology, which emerged as a philosophical mode of inquiry in Europe around the turn of the 20th century (Barkway, 2001, p 192) and has always been concerned with the participants’ lived experiences of certain events. With regard to the etymology of the term, Heidegger (1962, p 50) supports that ‘phenomenology’ has two components, deriving from the Greek ‘phenomenon’ and ‘logos’, meaning ‘the science of phenomena’, as ‘logos’ can be translated in Greek as ‘the science of ’.27 27

According to Laverty (2003, p 5), the core principle of phenomenology is to study human experience and the particular structures of the participants’ consciousness from a first-​ person point of view. As a result, it would be safe to say that IPA is certainly interested in exploring the participants’ perceptions of their personal experiences, rather than demonstrating an objective record of those experiences. On this matter, Moran (2000, p 4) states that ‘phenomenology emphasises the attempt to get to the truth of matters, to 21

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Relating to the origins of phenomenology, Husserl is the acknowledged founder of the ‘descriptive phenomenological approach’, his goals being ‘epistemological’, which derives from the Greek word ‘episteme’, meaning ‘knowledge’ and ‘logos’, as presented earlier, thus entailing the term ‘logical discourse’ (see Todres and Wheeler, 2001, p 3; Dowling, 2007, p 132).28 When it comes to participants being affected by certain events, Husserl’s approach on ‘phenomenological reduction’ is based on removing ‘general positing’ and describing the essential structures of phenomena in a manner that is free of interpretation, so that the researcher can investigate events without making assumptions or judgements about the world (Husserl, 1983, p 61). As a result, phenomenology for Husserl (1983, p 35) is ‘transcendental’ and urges us ‘back to the things themselves’, which means that phenomena are to be examined exactly as they appear, with no supposition whatsoever.29 Moving away from Husserl’s theory on ‘descriptive phenomenology’ and his approach on ‘bracketing’,30 Heidegger reinstated phenomenology as ‘interpretative’ or ‘hermeneutic’, deriving from the Greek word ‘ἑρμηνεύω –​ hermeneuō’, which means ‘to translate’ or ‘to interpret’, with the main difference among these two approaches being located at their primary focus. More specifically, Heidegger proposed that phenomenology is ‘partly interested in something that is disguised, where meaning is hidden and is brought to light through the adoption of deep reflection and interpretation’,

28

29

30

describe phenomena in the broadest sense as whatever appears in the manner in which it appears, that is as it manifests itself to consciousness’. Discursive approaches are primarily focused on the linguistic resources that participants draw upon in an effort to provide detailed accounts of experience (for example, Reicher, 2000, p 5; Willig, 2008, p 162) as well as the conversational features which occur while sharing information with regard to the phenomena they experienced, a process that is considered to be compatible with IPA (such as Smith, 1996, p 267; Clare, 2003, p 1019). Hence, discourse analysts examine in detail what participants say in order to learn the ways in which participants construct accounts of experience (Smith et al, 2009), whereas IPA researchers talk to participants and analyse the meaning that participants give to their experiences. This is reflected in Husserl’s phenomenological theory of ‘epoché’ or ‘bracketing’ (see Bradbury Jones et al, 2009, p 664; Githaiga, 2014, p 403), which can be achieved by using the simple question ‘What if?’, followed by hypothetical alternative ways of experiencing a situation. This way, researchers can identify and examine each aspect of the account and ascertain those who are essential, thus having a fresh way of looking at things by returning to the origins of phenomena (Larkin et al, 2011, p 322) and acquiring original data, which are untainted by pre-​existing biases (such as Moustakas, 1994, p 51; Paley, 1997, p 188). On a methodological level, in Husserl’s ‘bracketing’, the modus operandi for the researcher would be to move on to re-reading the transcribed text; identify themes that best capture the essential qualities of that particular interview, as well as locate possible or likely connections between interview results. This process leads to the creation of theoretical concepts and terms in phenomenological analysis. 22

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

which can be achieved through the ‘hermeneutic’ process (for example, Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 53; Smith et al, 2009, p 23).31 Taking it one step further, Smith et al (1999, p 219) support that ‘Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’ is based on a combination of ‘interpretation’ and ‘phenomenology’, which is translated into a context where the participant and the researcher are strongly interconnected. In other words, IPA believes in a ‘chain of connection’ between embodied experience and how the participant makes sense of and reacts to that particular experience. This process leads to the production of the ‘analytic account’ (for example, Smith et al, 1997, p 68; Osborn and Smith, 1998, p 67; Shinebourne, 2011, p 26) and the adoption of an ‘insider perspective’ (Smith, 1996, p 264).32 Therefore, what makes IPA unique according to scholars (see Smith et al, 1999, p 219; Smith, 2004, p 40; Brocki and Wearden, 2006, p 97), is the fact that it recognises the central role of the researcher’s own conceptions in making sense of the personal experiences of participants. This process leads to the co-​construction of knowledge between researcher and participant and further differentiates IPA from the ‘descriptive phenomenological approaches’, as advocated by Husserl (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p 93). Thus, a new variant of phenomenology is introduced that aims to explore the perception of individuals (Finlay and Ballinger, 2006, p 257) by focusing on the participants’ consciousness of lived experiences. In consequence, by offering a theoretical foundation and a detailed procedural guide (Brocki and Wearden, 2006, p 87), IPA gradually developed as a distinctive qualitative approach in the field of psychology (see Smith, 1996; Giorgi, 1997; Todorova, 2011; Skårdalsmo Bjørgo and Jensen, 2015; Thommessen et al, 2015) and as such, it has been applied extensively in contemporary research (Chapman and Smith, 2002).

31

32

The main difference between phenomenology and hermeneutics, according to Bäckström and Sundin (2007, p 244), is the fact that while phenomenology uncovers meanings, hermeneutics ‘interprets’ the meaning and because of this, ‘hermeneutic phenomenology’ is considered to have ‘descriptive’ and ‘interpretative’ qualities, thus enabling ‘inter-​ subjective understanding’ (Van der Zalm and Bergum, 2000, p 217). After all, in order to produce knowledge, we depend heavily on the stance taken with regard to the connection between knowledge and knowledge producer (Bauwens et al, 2013), which needs to be made explicit as it raises questions on the relationship between participant and researcher. According to the ‘analytic’ process, the researcher is expected to conduct a detailed analysis of each individual case, followed by a careful examination of similarities and differences across cases, in order to produce ‘detailed accounts of patterns of meaning and reflections on shared experience’ (Shinebourne, 2011, p 26). In addition to the latter, the ‘insider perspective’ suggests that the researcher’s insights are necessary in order to help make sense of the participants’ experiences through an interpretative approach (Smith, 1996, p 264). 23

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

As a result, IPA goes beyond a standard approach by providing a detailed ‘interpretative analysis’ of themes (Brocki and Wearden, 2006, p 97),33 which allows the researcher to better understand how individuals interact with one another and how this interaction eventually shapes behaviours. This is translated into a methodological structure which is concerned ‘with the detailed examination of personal lived experience, the meaning of experience to participants and how participants make sense of that experience’ with respect to major events in their life (see Reid et al, 2005, p 22; Smith et al, 2009, p 1; Smith, 2011, p 9). In fact, it has been supported in the literature (for example, Eatough et al, 2008, p 1769; Smith et al, 2009, p 19; Back et al, 2011, p 52) that IPA focuses on analysing how meanings are constructed by individuals within both their social and their personal world. Ergo, the ‘phenomenological perspective’ of IPA should be seen as an ‘experiential approach’ to qualitative research combined with elements of an ‘idiographic focus’, the aim being to understand how a given person in a given context makes sense of a given phenomenon.34 Nevertheless, attempting to access an individual’s lifeworld directly and understand what it is like for them to have a particular experience is something that cannot be achieved directly or completely, as there is no clear window into that life (see Smith, 1996, p 264; Eatough et al, 2008, p 1771). For this reason, the researcher’s own conceptions are always required in order to explore the participant’s personal world through a process of interpretative activity.35 On that account, due to the fact that the researcher’s own assumptions often affect the individual’s experience of specific events, IPA acknowledges the

33

34

35

This process differentiates IPA from ‘content analysis’, which seeks to produce a quantitative analysis of discrete categories from qualitative data as well as from ‘grounded theory’, which intends to analyse content in a more systematic way by performing different stages of coding, which include creating themes, categories and, after that, theory. However, ‘grounded theory’ does not allow the researcher to go beyond what is said, which is exactly where qualitative and quantitative traditions meet. According to Kvale (1996, p 38), IPA’s ‘phenomenological perspective’ ‘includes a focus on the life world, an openness to the experiences of the subjects, a primacy of precise descriptions, attempts to bracket foreknowledge, and a search for invariant essential meanings in the descriptions’. Also, when it comes to the element of ‘idiography’, according to Thomae (1999, p 187), this approach places emphasis on exploring the unique individual experiences and behaviour of the participant. For this reason, the ‘idiographic’ element of IPA dictates that the researcher is expected to reach a certain degree of closure with the in-depth examination of a single case before proceeding to the next one, and so on through the entire corpus of cases, in order to eventually be able to conduct a cross-case analysis of the emergent themes, based either on their convergence or divergence of scope (for example, Smith, 2004, p 41; 2011, p 10; Bramley and Eatough, 2005, p 225; De Visser and Smith, 2006, p 687). Under the same premise, according to Larkin et al (2011, p 330), interpretative phenomenology aims to understand how people make sense of events, relationships and processes in the general context of their lives. 24

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

complexity of the relationship between researcher and participant and stresses the importance of the researchers’ awareness of their own bias (Smith et al, 2009, p 24). As a result, researchers are expected to put aside their own practical knowledge regarding the topic under discussion so that their assumptions are avoided, thus allowing the research to be uninterruptedly focused on the participant’s own experience. Therefore, different interpretative stances are possible in hermeneutic phenomenology, as IPA combines ‘empathic’ hermeneutics with ‘questioning’ hermeneutics (Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 54), which means that IPA is practically concerned with trying to understand what the experience is like from the participants’ point of view. Hence, given that IPA analyses phenomena which are related to meaningful experiences of participants, such as major life events, the skill in writing IPA is to allow the reader to parse the narrative in two different ways (see Smith, 2004, p 42; 2007, p 9); firstly, the themes which the participants share, and, secondly, the researcher’s own account by linking these through the write-​up. This way, the reader of the report can learn about the important generic themes in the analysis, but also interpret the participant’s personal experiences and ‘assess the evidence in relation to their existing professional and experiential knowledge’ (Smith et al, 2009, p 4), also known as ‘theoretical generalisability’. However, Elliott et al (1999, p 216) note that caution is essential so that the connection between the participant’s own words and the researcher’s interpretations is not lost, especially given that in ‘double hermeneutics’,36 the challenge for the researcher ‘to critically and reflexively evaluate how these pre-​understandings influence the research’ is always present (Finlay, 2008, p 17).37 For this reason, during the two-​stage process of the ‘double hermeneutic’ method, the researcher focuses on interpreting the participants’ sense-​making activity of their experiences, while maintaining access to their own prior experience by bringing ‘their fore-​conception to the encounter’ and acknowledging that the fore-​structure of things may present ‘an obstacle to interpretation’ (Smith, 2007, p 6).

36

37

According to the literature (see Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 53; Smith et al, 2009, p 3), the ‘double hermeneutic method’ is based on the premise that in the context of the research, ‘participants are trying to make sense of their world, while the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world’. Hence, Eatough and Smith (2017, p 205) note that ‘the double hermeneutic points to how interpretation and understanding involves a synthesis, in this instance, of research participants’ sense-​making (typically in an interview setting) and that of the researcher during the stages of analysis’. Similarly, Heidegger (1962, p 195) argues that ‘our first, last, and constant task in interpreting is never to allow our fore-​having, fore-​sight, and fore-​conception to be presented to us by … popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out the fore-​structures in terms of the things themselves’. 25

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Conducting IPA in the context of migration After considering the pros and cons of various alternatives, the author proceeded with Heidegger’s theory on ‘hermeneutic’ or ‘interpretative’ phenomenology. This approach was found to be the optimum process fit for this study for two reasons. Firstly, because it led to the successful co-​construction of knowledge, as already discussed, and secondly because it allowed the author to conduct research more effectively and further understand in the best possible way the reality that unaccompanied children had experienced in detention.38 As presented earlier, the main element in Heidegger’s theory on phenomenology is located on the fact that truth is not something that is constructed by distancing oneself from the phenomenon and focusing merely on its description, but understanding is based on the interpretation of phenomena (Bradbury Jones et al, 2009, p 665). Therefore, it was Heidegger who introduced the ‘phenomenology factor’ to research, according to which, the personal experiences and input of the researcher are brought in the act of understanding the participants’ accounts and these cannot be bracketed (Koch, 1996, p 176) as one ‘makes sense of his world from his existence and not while detached from it’ (Annells, 1996, p 706).39 The latter confirms that qualitative research is the key, as such experiences would not be easily accessed through quantitative methods. According to scholars (such as Smith, 1996, p 264; Flowers et al, 1999, p 486), this is exactly what makes the IPA approach ideal for research involving interviews. That is because IPA is a purely dynamic process which is concerned with the individuals’ subjective reports, rather than the formulation of objective accounts, in the sense that the personal and the social are elided and as a result ‘the social world is more than mere context; it is the constituent

38

39

When compared to quantitative questionnaires or surveys, IPA interviews are more effective and lucrative in providing clear research results, as they assist towards moving beyond description and making perspicuous points. On the other hand, ‘grounded theory’ was considered to be inappropriate for the reasons mentioned earlier in this chapter, namely because this study could never focus only on what is being said by participants, but requires an in-​depth examination of the participants’ personal lived experiences instead. With regard to the ‘ontological aspect of phenomenology’ (Cohen and Omery, 1994, p 140), and the meaning of ‘being’ (Gadamer, 2004, p 86), Heidegger used the term ‘being in the world’ rather than ‘being of the world’ (Ray, 1994, p 121), in an effort to refer to the way human beings exist and act. This is why it is rather common in IPA research for one to use the term ‘lived experience’ when one intends to describe the main aim of IPA, which is to attempt and understand the lived experience of the participant who is situated ‘in the world’, where the world is understood by the researcher who interprets the participant’s input. 26

Children’s Rights and Methodologies

ground of personhood, and a prerequisite for human being’ (Larkin et al, 2011, p 324).40 Of course, when it comes to conducting IPA research with children, the challenges are omnipresent and, in the case of this study in particular, there were methodological barriers that had to be surpassed. More specifically, it has been mentioned in the literature (Giannopoulou and Gill, 2019, p 111) that migrant minors who participate in research projects should be addressed as if they were adults, especially when children are unaccompanied. This would apply because at the time of the interview, unaccompanied children would have already accomplished something exceptionally difficult, which is to cross national borders and walk endless distances in order to reach a safe destination far from home. However, this study does not follow this opinion, as the author finds it not to be congruent with the ‘double hermeneutic’ element of IPA, which was described earlier. Therefore, in this project the age factor was indeed taken into consideration as well as the element of vulnerability that characterises minors on the migratory pathway, both of which underline the country’s obligations towards unaccompanied children under the scope of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle of Art. 3 CRC. For this reason, the children that took part in this study were never addressed as adults rather as minors in need of special care, protection and assistance. To conduct IPA research with unaccompanied children required careful steps to be taken. This process also included navigating between different layers of interpretation (Smith, 2004, p 44) in order to acquire the desired result, which was to bring the actual and sincere ‘voice of the child’ to the surface. To this end, throughout the held interviews, the author focused on the participants’ needs and wishes by observing them and systematically noting their mood, reactions and preferences as well as by cautiously listening to what they had to say. That being so, the author initially concentrated on assisting unaccompanied children to overcome their adverse experiences from detention. The aim was to help them become more active in relation to constructing and articulating their thoughts and memories in an accurate manner. Only then was the author able to apply the phenomenological element of IPA and explore in

40

Following this premise, it is through ‘hermeneutics’ that IPA aims at obtaining a holistic perspective of the participants’ accounts, which can be achieved by several close and detailed readings of each individual interview (Skourteli and Apostolopoulou, 2015, p 21), followed by the researcher’s personal input. This process where the researcher focuses on the participants’ preconceptions as they engage with the data is known as the ‘hermeneutic circle’, which allows the researcher to decide how much movement on the participants’ side is acceptable and to what extent participants may refrain from the schedule (Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 64). 27

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

detail the processes through which participants made sense of their own experiences. And that while promoting the interpretative character of IPA, which is based on acknowledging the significance of the researcher’s role in making sense of the participants’ personal experiences (see Smith et al, 1997, p 70; Chapman and Smith, 2002, p 126; Kaptein, 2011, p 43). Eventually, it was the use of IPA that gave the opportunity to participants to discuss certain matters that they were never before able to. This way, the author focused on their subjective conscious experiences (Kennedy, 2014, p 206) and their ‘insider perspective’ accounts (see Eatough and Smith, 2008, p 181; Harper, 2008, p 436). As a result, the ‘hermeneutic’ element of IPA was applied throughout all interview stages (for example, Smith, 1996, 2004, 2011; Smith and Osborn, 2003; Smith et al, 2009) and the author was able to perform a detailed exploration regarding the participants’ personal lived experiences in a non-​coercive manner (Giorgi and Giorgi, 2003), thus allowing for the research aims to be achieved. According to Schweitzer and Steel (2008, p 10), IPA has particular salience in relation to refugee studies, as it is especially apt for research questions which are concerned with the thorough examinations of single persons’ lived experiences (see Bramley and Eatough, 2005; De Visser and Smith, 2006; Smith, 2011). Also, it is suitable for studies where the research issues that arise are complex or dilemmatic, or studies that seek to give voice to vulnerable groups of individuals (such as Smith et al, 2002, p 133; Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 53). However, to this day a clear link between IPA and socio-​legal research remains practically non-​existent, as IPA has not been widely applied in this field, with the exception of projects that focus on describing the children’s experiences in legal proceedings (Back et al, 2011). Therefore, to apply IPA in order to provide participants with the opportunity to be heard regarding the detention conditions that unaccompanied children experienced upon irregular entry into Greece between the years 2016 and 2020, is undoubtedly unique. After all, it is not enough to merely study how human rights are embedded in national frameworks, but instead to take a step further and assess how these rights are experienced in practice and in concrete situations by people who are subjected to certain phenomena. By introducing IPA and the ‘double hermeneutic’ method to the field of children’s rights in the migration setting, this project adds significantly to the current body of knowledge by combining a legal analysis with an empirical base. This leads to innovative socio-​legal and criminological research under the scope of interpretative phenomenology, which is an approach that has not yet been applied in studies that examine the rights of unaccompanied children in the Greek domestic policy while looking into certain aspects of UAM detention processes, as will be further discussed.

28

3

Criminals in Waiting The UNHCR (20041) defines unaccompanied minors as children below the age of 18 who ‘have been separated from both parents and are not being cared for by an adult, including a distant relative, who, by law of custom, is responsible to do so’. From the point of view of statistics, migrant minors and adolescents below the age of 18 represent almost half of the worldwide refugee population, making up an estimated one-​third of the total world population, the majority of them being unaccompanied (for example, UNHCR, 2012,2 20133; Vervliet et al, 2015, p 468). On the other hand, the term ‘separated’ refers to children under the age of 18 who are similarly separated from both parents or from their previous legal or customary primary caregiver, albeit usually living with extended family members, such as siblings, or an uncle or aunt (UN General Assembly, 2001,4 p 3). Adding to UNHCR’s definition, the European Council, under Art. 2(e) of Directive 2013/​33/​EU, provides a more detailed description of the term. More specifically, according to the latter, an unaccompanied child is: [A]‌ minor who arrives in the territory of a Member State unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him … and for as long as he

1

2

3

4

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2004), Trends in Unaccompanied and Separated Children Seeking Asylum in Industrialised Countries, 2001–​2003. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, July 2004. Available from www.unhcr.org/​40f646​ 444.pdf UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2012), Global Trends: Displacement, the New 21st Century Challenge. Available from www.unhcr.org/​sta​tist​ics/​coun​try/​51bacb​0f9/​unhcr-​ glo​bal-​tre​nds-​2012.html UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2013), Global Trends: War’s Human Cost. Available from www.unhcr.org/​sta​tist​ics/​coun​try/​5399a1​4f9/​unhcr-​glo​bal-​tre​nds-​2013.html UN General Assembly (2001), Protection and assistance to unaccompanied and separated refugee children: Report of the Secretary General, 7 September 2001, A/​56/​333. Available from www. refwo​rld.org/​pdfid/​3d58c6​147.pdf 29

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

or she is not effectively taken into the care of such person; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of the Member States. However, despite the implementation of the definition in the Greek legal framework,5 it was never clarified in the national context how migrant children may end up unaccompanied after they enter the country. On this matter, practice confirms that migrant minors usually leave their countries of origin alone but join other individuals in the process, often relatives already en route to safe destinations. Alternatively, children may embark upon this journey alongside close relatives or primary caregivers, but eventually end up alone.6 For this reason, it has been supported that the term ‘separated’ may be considered more accurate, as the term ‘unaccompanied’ veils ‘the presence of many social actors who shape these migrations at the onset, during the journey, and at the destination’ (for example Kohli, 2007, p 4; Menjívar and Perreira, 2019, p 201). With regard to their background, unaccompanied children most commonly originate from areas that are severely affected by armed conflicts, warfare activities and a rather unstable socio-​political regime overall. This setting makes them targets for multiple human rights abuses, including but not restricted to forced migration, gender-​based violence, torture and even sexual or labour exploitation. As a result, in their majority, unaccompanied children take the migratory path in search of a better future, to which end they flee their countries aiming to escape persecution. Consequently, as soon as they arrive in a safe destination, they follow all the necessary procedures that would grant them international protection,7 primarily aiming to acquire the refugee status.8 5

6

7

8

Originally under Art. 1(i) of Act 3386 of 2005, as replaced by Act 4251 of 2014; Act 4375 of 2016; Act 4540 of 2018 and most recently by Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020 at the time this research was completed. At the time of publication, this provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to the UNHCR (1994, p 122), ‘It is essential to know which children are unaccompanied as children who are not being cared for by their families face a high risk of not receiving proper protection and care. While unaccompanied minors are usually taken care of by other refugees, experience shows that physical and developmental needs are not always met’. UN High Commissioner for Refugees (1994) Refugee Children: Guidelines on Protection and Care, 1994. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3ae6b3​470.html As discussed in Chapter 2, according to Art. 2(h) of Directive 2011/​95/​EU, an application for international protection is ‘a request made by a third-​country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection, outside the scope of this Directive, that can be applied for separately’. This provision was most recently implemented in the Greek law under Art. 2(b) of Act 4636 of 2019 and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to Art 1A(2) of the Convention (1951), the term ‘refugee’ applies to any person who ‘[a]‌s a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing 30

Criminals in Waiting

Therefore, scholars have thoroughly focused on the fact that unaccompanied children face greater risks than children and youth who are accompanied by close relatives, parents, caretakers or guardians (such as Goodman, 2004, p 1177; Thommessen et al, 2013, p 7). Furthermore, there is a general consensus in the literature regarding the fact that unaccompanied children are particularly vulnerable, especially when compared to other groups of asylum-​seeking individuals (see UN General Assembly, 1996, p 23;9 Derluyn and Broekaert, 2008, p 323; Derluyn and Vervliet, 2012, p 95; Thommessen et al, 2015, p 374; Papadopoulos and Pycroft, 2019, p 582). The element of vulnerability that characterises unaccompanied children has also been referred upon in international human rights instruments, including the CRC, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2010,10 hereinafter FRA) and the European Migration Network of the European Commission (201011), which provides information on migrant minors based on guidelines shared by the Hellenic Police. Similarly, Vervliet et al (2015, p 469) have asserted that given their young age and the lack of guardians, unaccompanied children are in urgent need of protection and care at arrival in host countries, which includes child-​appropriate reception processes combined with efficient socio-​legal support. In the case of Greece, when unaccompanied children arrive in the country, they are placed under the temporary guardianship of the Public Prosecutor for minors or, if the latter is not available, the First Instance Public Prosecutor, under whose territorial jurisdiction the minor is located upon

9

10

11

to well-​founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’. This provision was originally implemented in the Greek framework under Art. 2(d) of PD 113 of 2013, as replaced by a series of legal Acts, including Act 4375 of 2016 and Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020 and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. UN General Assembly (1996), Impact of armed conflict on children: Note by the Secretary-​ General, 26 August 1996, A/​51/​306. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​3b00f2​ d30.html European Union: European Agency for Fundamental Rights (2010), Separated, asylum-​ seeking children in European Union Member States: Comparative report, December 2010. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4ecf71​aeb.html European Commission, Directorate-​General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Migration Network (2011), Policies on reception, return and integration for, and numbers of unaccompanied minors: an EU comparative study. Publications Office. Available from https://​ data.eur​opa.eu/​doi/​10.2837/​10006 31

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

irregular entry.12 This confirms the Committee’s (2011,13 p 12) opinion that minors are either ‘emancipated, in the care of primary or proxy caregivers, or in the de facto care of the State’. Sadly, however, the high number of unaccompanied children that are allocated to each Public Prosecutor, in most cases makes it rather impossible for them to effectively carry out their duties as temporary guardians. For this reason, efforts were recently instigated on a national level, so that the guardianship framework for migrant minors would be replaced. Eventually, Act 4554 of 2018 was introduced, which focused on safeguarding the well-​being of unaccompanied children (FRA, 201514) and therefore it was welcomed as an improvement to the domestic policy.15 Nevertheless, despite the constant criticism against Greece for failing to cover the needs of unaccompanied children (European Committee of Social Rights, 201916), the number of significant changes that the new law introduced to the national context, coupled with the country’s unpreparedness to implement

12

13

14

15

16

The followed process was originally described in Act 4540 of 2018, as amended, which, under Art. 30(6) replaced all the provisions of PD 220 of 2007 except for Art. 19(1), thus allowing the competent Public Prosecutor to act as the temporary guardian for unaccompanied children. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 13: The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence, 18 April 2011, CRC/​C/​GC/​13. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4e6da4​922.html European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2015), Guardianship for Children Deprived of Parental Care: A Handbook to Reinforce Guardianship Systems to Cater for the Specific Needs of Child Victims of Trafficking. FRA, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from https://​fra.eur​opa.eu/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​fra-​2014-​guard​ians​hip-​ childr​en_​e​n_​0.pdf In detail, Act 4554 of 2018 introduced the concept of ‘professional guardian’ to assist towards the successful integration of unaccompanied children in the society, under the scope of Art. 3 CRC. Hence, in an effort to ensure the proper representation of migrant minors to national authorities throughout the reception process, the law states that a guardian shall be appointed to an alien or stateless person under the age of 18, who arrives in Greece unaccompanied by either a relative or a non-​relative who exercises parental guardianship or custodial acts. These provisions remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. European Committee of Social Rights (2019), Decision on admissibility and on immediate measures: International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece, Complaint No.173/​2018, 23 May 2019. Available from http://​hudoc.esc.coe.int/​eng?i=​cc-​173-​2018-​dadm​issa​ndim​med-​en. According to the original complaint, Greece had failed to cover the needs of either unaccompanied or accompanied children, both on the mainland and the islands, on several levels. Thus, through the issued decision, Greece was invited to ensure the appointment of guardians when a separated or unaccompanied child in need of international protection would be identified as such as well as guarantee the effective functioning of the national 32

Criminals in Waiting

said changes, led to its full enactment being repeatedly postponed and it still has not taken place as of 2022.17 With respect to the situation of unaccompanied children in Greece, when this research was conducted EKKA18 was responsible for managing the national referral and placement system for migrant minors (UN International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2017,19 p 16, hereinafter UNICEF). So, at the end of 2019 (EKKA, 201920), the estimated number of unaccompanied children in the country was 5,301, however Greece could only offer 1,488 places in long-​term accommodation, such as shelters and apartments, and 841 places in temporary units, such as safe zones and hotels.21 As a result, there was a particularly high number of unaccompanied children

17

18

19

20

21

guardianship system overall. This decision was issued despite the Greek Government’s assertion that the legislative and policy measures which were required for the protection of the rights of unaccompanied children were already in place at the time, obviously referring to Act 4554 of 2018 on guardianship procedures for unaccompanied and separated children. At the time of publication, Act 4554 of 2018 had been partly replaced by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. The National Centre for Social Solidarity (EKKA) originally emerged as an important and valuable actor in the humanitarian and migration context in Greece. EKKA focused on publishing detailed statistical information on a biweekly basis regarding the number, age, nationality, gender and location of unaccompanied children in the country. Additionally, acting as a governmental agency and a social support services network, EKKA monitored the time it took for national authorities to process referrals of unaccompanied children to accommodation structures, the length of the minors’ stay in shelters and the rate at which children abscond, hence provided crucial information and assistance to child-​protection service actors and policy makers at the time this research took place. The UN International Children’s Emergency Fund (2017), Beyond borders: How to make the global compacts on migration and refugees work for uprooted children, December 2017. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​5a2151​6e4.html National Centre for Social Solidarity (2019), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 December 2019. Available from https://​data2.unhcr.org/​en/​docume​ nts/​deta​ils/​73385 With reference to short-​term accommodation structures in specific, EKKA defines ‘safe zones’ as designated supervised spaces located within accommodation sites (most commonly refugee camps) that provide UAM with emergency protection on a 24-​hour basis. Normally, safe zones are to be used as short-​term accommodation structures, offering protection to UAM in light of the insufficient number of available shelters for a limited period of maximum three months, for which reason priority is given to UAM who are subjected to detention processes as well as other vulnerable children, in line with Art. 3 CRC. To this end, a safe zone is considered to be a transition replacement for migrant minors and its mission is to take children out of detention centres as soon as possible and accommodate them until a permanent placement is available for them in long-​term accommodation structures. For this reason, during their stay in the safe zone, minors are provided with support and services, including legal aid, offered by highly trained and experienced staff. Hotels, on the other hand, are emergency accommodation spaces 33

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

on the waiting list for suitable accommodation at the time, which clearly illustrated the urgent need for migrant minors to be placed in appropriate facilities immediately upon arrival in the country.

Entering the country irregularly When it comes to the issue of irregular entry, Art. 26 of the Convention stipulates that ‘[e]‌ach Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory, subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances’. Also, according to Art. 31(1): [C]‌ontracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided that they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. It is clear that the Convention’s original intention was to insulate refugees from penalties for such actions, nonetheless without prohibiting detention, which may still apply, however not as a punitive but rather as an administrative measure. For this reason, De Bruycker et al (2015, p 31) argue that Art. 26 and 31 of the Convention must be read together in the sense that asylum seekers arriving in a host country without legal formalities should benefit from the general rule of freedom of movement, while being protected from arbitrary restrictions of liberty. In the Greek context, to this day irregular entry into the country is punishable by law.22 As a result, if an individual enters Greece in an irregular

22

giving priority to UAM who are located at the borders. Safe zones and hotels ceased to exist by the end of 2021 and were replaced by long-​term accommodation alternatives. This will be discussed in this study’s conclusion, followed by a commentary on the recent developments in the national law. This issue is currently regulated by Art. 83(1) of Act 3386 of 2005, as amended, which states that ‘[t]‌hird-​country nationals’ as well as EU nationals, ‘who exit or attempt to exit Greece or enter or attempt to enter Greece without legal formalities, shall be punished by imprisonment of at least three months and a fine of at least one thousand five hundred Euros (€1,500)’, whereas if one is wanted by judicial or police authorities or has tax or other obligations to the State or is a recidivist, one’s actions shall be considered as aggravating circumstances and one ‘shall be punished by imprisonment of at least six months and a fine of at least three thousand (€3,000)’. Moreover, Art. 76 of Act 3386 of 2005, as amended, clarifies the conditions under which deportation may apply as well as the procedure that is to be followed. These provisions remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 34

Criminals in Waiting

manner, they would be apprehended for violating the national framework. Subsequently, a criminal case would be filed against them and they would be subjected to detention processes, most often pending deportation, unless the Public Prosecutor refrains from pressing legal charges and orders their direct deportation to their country of origin instead.23 In the meantime, if said individual decides to submit an application for international protection, they would not be prosecuted, but only temporarily. On this matter, the ‘Practical Handbook for Border Guards’ (2006,24 p 54), clarifies that ‘[a]‌third-​country national must be considered as applicant for asylum/​international protection if he/​she expresses –​in any way –​fear of suffering serious harm if he/​she is returned to his/​her country of origin or former habitual residence’.25 Nevertheless, until a decision on their application is issued, international protection applicants may remain in detention,26 albeit under specific circumstances. This includes the case when an individual is considered a threat to the national security or public order, which is most commonly used by the police in practice.27 23

24

25

26

27

In this case, the Public Prosecutor ‘shall immediately notify his decision to the commander of the Police or port authority who discovered the illegal entry or departure, in order for the latter to forward the third-​country national immediately to the country of origin or descent’, according to Art. 83(2) of Act 3386 of 2005, as amended, building up on Art. 50 (2) of Act 2910 of 2001. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. European Union: Council of the European Union (2006), Commission Recommendation establishing a common ‘Practical Handbook for Border Guards (Schengen Handbook)’ to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out the border control of persons, 15010/​ 06, 9 November 2006. Available from http://​regis​ter.consil​ium.eur​opa.eu/​doc/​srv?l=​ EN&f=​ST%2015​010%202​006%20I​NIT This provision was originally implemented in the national context under Art. 34(d) of Act 4375 of 2016, as amended by Art. 65(8) of Act 4636 of 2019 and Art. 6(4) of Act 4686 of 2020, specifically stating that ‘The person declaring the will to submit an application for international protection is considered an asylum seeker’ and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. The possibility for international protection applicants to remain in detention until a decision on their application is issued, was originally introduced under Art. 18 of Directive 2005/​ 85/​EC. More specifically, according to Art. 18(1), ‘Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he/​she is an applicant for asylum’, whereas according to Art. 18(2), ‘Where an applicant for asylum is held in detention, Member States shall ensure that there is a possibility of speedy judicial review’. The latter was implemented in the Greek policy originally under Art. 13 of PD 90 of 2008, as amended, which replaced the pre-​existing framework, according to which detention would not apply if an individual would request international protection. These provisions remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to Art. 46(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended, ‘A third-​country national or stateless person who submits an application for international protection while being detained under the relevant provisions’, shall remain detained under exceptional circumstances, ‘provided that this is necessary, following an individual evaluation and provided that 35

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Hence, protection from prosecution would be provided not just in favour of individuals who have submitted an application for international protection, but also for those who simply expressed the will to submit one in the near future. As a result, any ongoing legal process on the basis of the individual’s irregular entry would be postponed until a decision on said application is issued. In fact, the Court procedure would occur again in case an individual receives international protection after having been convicted by the competent Court for crossing the national borders in an irregular manner. Therefore, asylum seekers in Greece appear to be in a form of legal limbo until their application for international protection is definitively rejected.28 This situation creates a unique phenomenon of ‘criminals in waiting’. In other words, individuals practically depend on the outcome of their application for international protection, whereas in the meantime the criminalisation of their irregular entry into the country remains unaffected. This applies in the case of unaccompanied children as well. Thus, similar to the process that is followed for adults, the Public Prosecutor may abstain from pressing legal charges against minors upon their arrest, although only if they have never committed a criminal offence in the past. From a procedural point of view, unaccompanied children may either be apprehended immediately upon arrival in the country, namely at the national borders, or on the mainland. In fact, as soon as they enter Greece in an irregular manner, their personal details are recorded in the authorities’ registry, based on the information that they shared either by submitting official documentation or by giving a personal statement. Regardless of the location where the arrest would occur, the competent authorities, including the Public Prosecutor for minors, or, if the latter is not available, the First Instance Public Prosecutor, must be informed promptly. This applies so that an order would be issued for the placement of unaccompanied children in appropriate facilities as soon as their details

28

alternative measures cannot be applied instead’. Also, according to Art. 48(2)(c) specifically, an international protection applicant may remain in detention, if he or she ‘constitutes a risk to the national security or public order, as per the reasoned judgment of the competent authority’. These provisions remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2020 – see disclaimer. This issue was originally referred upon in Art. 7(1) of Directive 2005/​85/​EC, according to which, ‘[a]‌pplicants shall be allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the procedure, until the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with the procedures at first instance’, and that ‘[t]his right to remain shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit’. The latter was implemented in the Greek law originally under Art. 5(1) of PD 114 of 2010, as amended by PD 113 of 2013, according to which, ‘[a]pplicants are allowed to remain in the country until the administrative procedure for the examination of their application is concluded and they shall not be removed, in any way’, unless the individual must be extradited in accordance with the country’s international 36

Criminals in Waiting

are recorded and all necessary reception and identification procedures29 are completed. Thereafter, if they are suspected of having been victims of trafficking or are younger than the age of 12, unaccompanied children would be admitted to a special institution following fast-​track procedures, which however rarely applied in practice when this study took place. In any case, according to the Greek Ombudsman (2005, 30 p 31), unaccompanied children should never be subjected to detention for entering the country in an irregular manner. Instead, they should be placed in a form of custody of a protective nature where their needs would be properly taken care of. Only if such a protective setting is not available, detention would then apply, albeit only under exceptional circumstances and certainly on a temporary basis until minors would be transferred to suitable accommodation. These issues will be further discussed in this chapter. Accordingly, based on the applicable law, the legal and procedural steps that would be expected to apply in favour of asylum-​seeking individuals, including unaccompanied children arriving irregularly in Greece between the years 2016 and 2020, are shown in Figure 3.1.

Addressing detention issues At the time this research was conducted, if unaccompanied children were located at the national borders, they would be transferred directly to the closest operation unit of the Reception and Identification Service (hereinafter RIS31)

29

30

31

obligations, or in case another Member State has accepted the responsibility to examine the individual’s application for international protection. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to Art. 39 of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended, the reception and identification procedures are divided in five stages, which include: (1) nationality verification upon irregular entry; (2) registration and age assessment examinations; (3) medical and psychosocial support; (4) provision of information with regard to rights and obligations; and (5) referral to appropriate accommodation facilities. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2005), Special Report on Administrative Detention and Deportation of Migrant Minors, October 2005. Available in Greek from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​docs/​203​224.pdf The First Reception Service was originally introduced under Act 3907 of 2011, and was later renamed to Reception and Identification Service under Act 4375 of 2016, which was consequently replaced by Art. 39 of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020. The original mission of RIS was to effectively manage the flow of illegally entering third-​ country nationals in the country under conditions that respect their dignity by including them in the procedures of First Reception. Between the years 2016 and 2020, five operation units were located at the Aegean Sea and more specifically at the islands of Leros, Lesvos, Kos, Chios and Samos and one unit was located on the mainland, at Fylakio, Evros, near the Greek–​Turkish border, all operating under the Reception and Identification Service 37

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Figure 3.1: Irregular entry into the Greek context Asylum-seeking individuals entering the country in an irregular manner.

Either arrest and prosecution would occur (postponed if an application for international protection is submitted and until a decision is issued).

Or the Public Prosecutor may refrain from pressing legal charges and may order the direct deportation of the individual instead.

In the case of UAM, the minors’ personal details are recorded and the Public Prosecutor is informed accordingly.

If a minor is suspected to have been a victim of trafficking or is younger than the age of 12, they are admitted to a special institution.

If no criminal offence has ever been committed by a minor, the Public Prosecutor may abstain from criminal prosecution.

UAM are placed in custody of a protective character or detention (under specific circumstances). In either case, they are subjected to reception and identification procedures.

in the territorial jurisdiction of which they had been arrested.32 If, on the other hand, they were located on the mainland, most often they would be placed directly in detention facilities, usually located within police departments. Either way, unaccompanied children would be deprived of their liberty by being subjected to a process which in Greek practice is commonly –​albeit incorrectly according to the author –​known as ‘protective custody’, pending referral to child-friendly hosting units of a more long-term character. With respect to the latter, the term ‘protective custody’ was originally introduced to the Greek legal framework under Art. 118(2)(a) of PD 141 of 1991 and referred to minors who had voluntarily or inadvertently disappeared, for which reason the law stipulated that they should be placed

32

of the Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum, formerly known as Ministry of Citizen Protection. From 20 February 2020, RIS is under the jurisdiction of the General Secretariat for the Reception of Asylum Seekers, which will be presented in Chapter 8. At the time of publication, the applicable law on reception and identification procedures remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to Art. 14 of Act 4375 of 2016; as replaced by Art. 39(4) Act 4636 of 2019, after arriving at a RIS operation unit, unaccompanied children would be deprived of their liberty for an initial period of five days, which could be extended to a total of 25 days, until all administrative processes would be completed, unless medical reasons would suggest 38

Criminals in Waiting

under custodial measures until they would be reunited with the persons responsible for them.33 However, under the premise of protecting and promoting the rights of unaccompanied children, Art. 31 of Directive 2011/​95/​EU34 stipulates that national authorities are expected to ensure that the minors’ needs are adequately covered upon irregular entry into the country and that they are placed in specialised centres or in any other appropriate accommodation that is suitable to host children. This setting will be referred to in this study as ‘custody of a protective character’, because according to the author the term ‘protective custody’ makes a direct reference to PD 141 of 1991, as presented, which in its original form did not include the case of children in the context of migration and unaccompanied children in particular. When it comes to detention processes for unaccompanied children, according to Art. 17(1) of Directive 2008/​115/​EC, ‘[u]‌naccompanied minors and families with minors shall only be detained as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time’. The provision is corroborated by Art. 11(2) of Directive 2013/​33/​EU, which added that ‘all efforts shall be made to release the detained minors and place them in accommodation suitable for minors’, thus confirming Art. 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2012) regarding the fact that ‘[e]veryone has the right to liberty and security of person’. In addition, stemming from Art. 5(4) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950,35 hereinafter ECHR), Art. 9 of Directive 2013/​33/​EU dictates that detention ‘shall be ordered in writing by judicial or administrative authorities’ and that the detention order should ‘state the reasons in fact and in law on which it is based’. This way, individuals would be informed in detail about the procedures that are laid down in the national law, including their right to request free legal assistance in case they would decide to challenge the issued detention order.

33

34

35

differently, in which case the minors would temporarily exit said unit. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. Under PD 141 of 1991, ‘protective custody’ was not considered a form of arrest, nor did it always amount to detention. For this reason, under the original scope of ‘protective custody’ individuals would not be placed in detention centres unless they could not be otherwise prevented from endangering themselves or others. Nevertheless, in practice children under ‘protective custody’ would be primarily held detained either in police stations or hospitals and always under police supervision. This provision was implemented in the Greek law under Art. 32 of PD 141 of 2013, as eventually replaced by Art. 32 of Act 4636 of 2019, according to which, ‘[a]‌uthorities shall ensure the residence of unaccompanied minors … (c) in special centres for the accommodation of minors; or (d) in other accommodation suitable for minors’ and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to Art. 5(4) ECHR, ‘[e]‌veryone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful’. 39

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

These matters have been widely promoted by human rights instruments (see FRA, 2017,36 p 130; Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe, 2017,37 p 2, hereinafter CPT), confirming that detention can only be applied after the careful examination of each individual case, coupled with periodic reviews and alternative measures of non-​custodial character, which should be developed accordingly. For this reason, the CPT (2017, p 9) has asserted that the right to prompt legal aid or any other appropriate form of support along with counselling and educational assistance must always be ensured in favour of unaccompanied children, in case they are subjected to detention processes upon arrival in host countries. Following a series of amendments, this legal context was gradually implemented in the Greek framework. Nevertheless, despite the numerous changes in the domestic policy, UAM detention measures may still apply, albeit only under certain conditions. More specifically, the law dictates that unaccompanied children can be placed in detention only as a measure of last resort, only if alternative and less restrictive measures cannot be implemented instead and in cases of extreme need, provided that their best interests are taken into consideration.38 Furthermore, detention may only last for a period of 25 days,39 during which unaccompanied children must be identified and have their nationality verified before they are assigned to specialised organisations or guardians, as discussed earlier. With regard to the detention conditions and the rights that detained UAM are entitled to, the applicable law40 dictates that they must be placed separately from adults, to never be placed in prison cells and to be provided with

36

37

38

39

40

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2017), Fundamental Rights Report. FRA, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from https://​ fra.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ​icat​ion/​2017/​fund​amen​tal-​r ig​hts-​rep​ort-​2017 Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (2017), Immigration detention –​ Factsheet (CPT), March 2017, CPT/​Inf 3. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​58ca84​ 894.html As presented in Chapter 1, according to Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, ‘[m]‌inors are placed in detention facilities only as a measure of last resort, always in accordance with their best interests and only if it is confirmed that alternative or less restrictive measures cannot be applied instead’. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. On this matter, Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019 originally allowed for a 20-​day extension, albeit in certain cases and only if appropriate accommodation was not available at the end of the original 25-​day detention period. The possibility for an extension was subsequently recalled by Art. 61 of Act 4686 of 2020 and the law remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. Originally Art. 46(10) of Act 4375 of 2016, as amended by Art. 10 of Act 4540 of 2018 and replaced by Art. 31, 46, 47, 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020. These provisions remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 40

Criminals in Waiting

age-​appropriate activities in facilities which must be sufficiently equipped after taking the minors’ needs into consideration. In addition, they are to be informed in full and in a language that they understand concerning the reasons and the duration of detention. Also, they are entitled to free legal assistance that would allow them to challenge the lawfulness of the issued detention order or the decision to extend any existing order, should they choose to. Lastly, they qualify for full medical care, for which reason it is specifically noted in the law that national authorities should be primarily concerned with ensuring the well-being of detained UAM and protecting their health, including their mental health. However, due to the high number of unaccompanied children entering the country between 2016 and 2020 (see EKKA, 2017,41 2018,42 2019; Eurostat, 201943), it was not long before Greece proved unable to address minors to suitable structures, namely to a form of custody of a protective character, as already discussed. This situation, combined with the lack of ample child-​appropriate accommodation –​either within the premises of RIS operation units, or in long-​or short-​term facilities on the mainland –​ resulted in unaccompanied children being directly subjected to detention processes upon arrival instead. In fact, even if unaccompanied children would apply for international protection while being detained, they would remain in detention until appropriate hosting units would become available. According to Troller (2008, p 53) the shortage of child-friendly accommodation structures results in arbitrary and prolonged detention periods which affects the status of unaccompanied children deeply. On this matter, the Committee has concluded that ‘children should not be criminalised or subjected to punitive measures because of their or their parents’ migration status’ and that ‘the detention of a child … always contravenes the principle of the best interests of the child’ (2012,44 p 18). This has also been supported by scholars (see Skordas and Sitaropoulos, 2004, p 26; Fili and Xythali, 2017, p 11), confirming that Greece has repeatedly

41

42

43

44

National Centre for Social Solidarity (2017), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 December 2017. Available from www.uni​cef.org/​eca/​sites/​uni​cef.org. eca/​files/​EKKA%20da​shbo​ard%2031-​12-​2017.pdf National Centre for Social Solidarity (2018), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 October 2018. Available from https://​relief​web.int/​rep​ort/​gre​ece/​ situat​ion-​upd​ate-​unacco​mpan​ied-​child​ren-​uac-​gre​ece-​31-​octo​ber-​2018-​enel Eurostat (2019), Asylum Applicants Considered to be Unaccompanied Minors –​Annual Data. Available from http://​ec.eur​opa.eu/​euros​tat/​web/​produ​cts-​datas​ets/​-​/​tps00​194 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report of the 2012 Day of General Discussion on the Rights of All Children in the Context of International Migration, 28 September 2012. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​ 51efb6​fa4.html 41

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

failed to provide appropriate assistance to international protection applicants, mostly due to a poorly structured legal framework. Adding to the discussion regarding immigration detention for children, the CPT (2019,45 p 54) recently confirmed that an increasing trend is ongoing on a European level, promoting measures that aim to stop such processes, especially due to phenomena of ‘continued and routine detention for lengthy periods in poor conditions and with insufficient care offered to them’. In fact, the CPT strongly argued that any form of deprivation of liberty may irreversibly affect the physical and mental well-​being of migrant minors. This resulted in the CPT (2019, p 5) taking a stance and inviting the Greek authorities to review their approach with regard to custody processes for unaccompanied children and more specifically to end UAM detention by amending the national policy accordingly, which however has not occurred to this day. The latter was also referred to by Smyth (2019, p 35), who confirmed the urgent need for UAM detention to be prohibited on an international level so that the violation of the CRC would be ultimately avoided. These issues will be thoroughly discussed in the following chapters and focus will be added on understanding how the law applied in practice when this research took place. To this end, an examination will occur on whether the conditions in detention complied with the national framework, as hereby presented. Hence, by giving voice to participants, the reality that unaccompanied children experienced upon irregular entry into Greece will be revealed and this study’s aims will be addressed.

45

Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (2019), 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 (CPT) from 10 to 19 April 2018, CPT/​Inf 4. Available from https://​r m.coe.int/​168​0930​c9a 42

4

Under the Research Lens It was demonstrated in previous chapters that the Greek law does not differentiate adult asylum seekers from minors when it comes to regulating phenomena of irregular entry into the country (Papadopoulos and Pycroft, 2019, p 585). Therefore, in the case of unaccompanied children in particular, detention processes may indeed apply according to the national framework, albeit only as a measure of last resort, strictly for the shortest appropriate period of time and only if less restrictive measures are not available.1 On this matter, despite acknowledging the sovereign right of States to control migration, the HRCR (2010,2 p 17) supported the abolishment of detention processes on an international level by stating that ‘the criminalisation of unlawful migration exceeds the legitimate interests of States in protecting its territories and regulating unlawful migration flows’. However, it has been confirmed by contemporary research that for more than a decade Greece had been systematically subjecting asylum-​seeking individuals to detention, regardless of age, thus garnering heavy criticism for falling short of achieving international minimum standards (International Detention Coalition, 2015,3 p 64).

1

2

3

The national law on UAM detention procedures is elaborated upon in Chapter 1 and Chapter 3. More specifically, this context was originally introduced under Art. 46(10) of Act 4375 of 2016, as amended by Art. 10 of Act 4540 of 2018 and by Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019 and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. UN General Assembly (2010), Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 18 January 2010, A/​HRC/​13/​30. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​502e0f​ a62.html International Detention Coalition (2015), There are alternatives: A handbook for preventing unnecessary immigration detention (revised edition). Melbourne: International Detention Coalition. Available from https://​idco​alit​ion.org/​publ​icat​ion/​there-​are-​alter​nati​ves-​revi​ sed-​edit​ion/​ 43

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Especially with regard to migrant children, it has been repeatedly discussed by the Greek Ombudsman (2005, 4 2014, 5 2017 6 ) that immigration detention shares a lot in common with criminal incarceration, as the minors’ freedom of movement is restricted within the premises of detention centres. In fact, according to scholars (see Bhabha, 2001, p 303; Galante, 2014, p 751) detained UAM are usually treated like adults; subjected to unsuitable conditions while being confined in sites that resemble prisons. As a result, the rights that unaccompanied children are granted are similar to those that criminals are entitled to, which confirms that detention should not occur in the context of immigration proceedings, rather in that of criminal justice systems.7 This context may hinder the development of unaccompanied children (Menjívar and Perreira, 2019, p 209), especially if one takes into consideration the often insufficiently staffed detention centres as well as the inadequate reception and identification procedures, coupled with the absence of available legal representation for minors. For this reason, the Committee (2017,8 p 3) concluded that ‘offences concerning irregular entry or stay cannot under any circumstances have

4

5

6

7

8

Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2005), Special Report on Administrative Detention and Deportation of Migrant Minors, October 2005. Available in Greek from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​docs/​203​224.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2014), Report after the monitoring visit at Amygdaleza Detention Centre, February 2014. Available in Greek from http://​old. synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​ekt​hesi​_​aft​opsi​as_​a​migd​alez​a_​2-​18-​2014.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2017), Press Release: Unacceptable conditions for detaining unaccompanied minors in Northern Greece, 31 July 2017. Available from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​press-​rele​ase-​-​4.pdf. In this case, in a specific detention centre in N. Greece, 17 unaccompanied children, most of them around the age of 15, were found to be placed in a 25 sqm room on mattresses that covered the floor area completely. This setting demonstrates the highly inappropriate conditions that detained UAM were being subjected to at the time. In fact, according to the UN Human Rights Council (2012, p 8), ‘[d]‌etention of migrants on the ground of their irregular status should under no circumstance be of a punitive nature. As migrants in administrative detention have not been charged with or convicted of a crime, they should not be subject to prison-​like conditions and environments’. UN General Assembly (2012), Human Rights Council, Twentieth session: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, 2 April 2012, A/​HRC/​20/​ 24. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​502e0b​b62.html UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), Joint General Comment No. 4 (2017) of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and No. 23 (2017) of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on State obligations regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration in countries of origin, transit, destination and return, 16 November 2017, CMW/​C/​GC/​4-​CRC/​C/​GC/​23. Available from www. refwo​rld.org/​docid/​5a1​2942​a2b.html 44

Under the Research Lens

consequences similar to those deriving from the commission of a crime’. Therefore, to subject unaccompanied children to detention is an act that contradicts the ‘best interests of the child’ principle as well as the right ‘to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development’, under Art. 3 CRC and 27(1) CRC respectively, even if detention is eventually applied as a measure of last resort. In addition, issues have also been raised in research as to the wider scope of immigration control and asylum procedures in general (Bhatia, 2015, p 99). This includes looking into border security policies and how detention may affect the well-​being of vulnerable migrant populations. For example, when referring to the situation in Greece, Bosworth et al (2018a, p 2190) support that the extensive use of detention is a product of the economic collapse that Greece endured in the past decade, which rendered the country unable to properly safeguard the rights of individuals, either by upgrading its accommodation facilities or by introducing new structures. The latter confirms Georgiev’s (2010, p 265) opinion that due to the existing inability of Member States to manage irregular migration flows, ‘the gap in capabilities and resources for addressing the future challenges is worrying’. Nevertheless, despite the ongoing debate on the different faces of detention for vulnerable groups of asylum-​seeking individuals, certain aspects of the reception procedures that unaccompanied children are subjected to upon irregular entry into Greece have remained unexplored to this day. Hence, this study’s aims will be elaborated upon at this point and emphasis will be placed on the ambiguous character of UAM detention, as it applied in the Greek legal framework at the time this research project took place, namely between the years 2016 and 2020. On that account, the concept of crimmigration will be initially subjected to close scrutiny, followed by references to the literature and a discussion regarding the need to explore the positionality of detained UAM in Greece within its scope. In addition, an analysis of Art. 12 CRC9 will occur as regards the right of children to be heard in every procedure that affects them. Finally, the author’s original theory on the existence of a ‘vicious circle of UAM detention’ will be introduced, providing the basis for the research analysis that will take place in the following chapters.

9

According to Art. 12(1) CRC, ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’, whereas according to Art. 12(2) CRC, ‘[f]‌or this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law’. The scope of Art. 12 CRC is discussed in Chapter 2. 45

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Exploring crimmigration According to the literature (see Stumpf, 2006, p 381; Legomsky, 2007, p 471; Aas, 2014, p 525), the term ‘crimmigration’ was originally created to denote the progressive convergence of criminal law and immigration law in both substance and procedure, to the point of indistinction. The term has also been used by scholars (Van der Woude et al, 2017, p 4) to merge crime control and immigration control, with the main difference being located at the involved purpose.10 With regard to the theoretical underpinnings of crimmigration, Stumpf (2006, p 377) proposed that ‘Membership Theory’, which ‘limits individual rights and privileges to the members of a social contract between government and the people, is at work in the convergence of criminal and immigration law’.11 Hence, while immigration law defines national membership explicitly, criminal law defines it implicitly, so that the ‘resulting status of an ex-​felon strikingly resembles that of an alien’, exemplified by their ineligibility to have voting rights (Weber and McCulloch, 2018, p 4). On this matter, Bowling (2013, p 8) notes that the State’s practices towards controlling migrants gradually created connections to the national criminal justice system, which led to the creation of an infrastructure known as the ‘crimmigration control system’. This structure managed to maintain the distinctive characteristics of each process respectively. In detail, according to Bowling and Westenra (2018, p 177), criminal justice systems usually tend to secure both crime control and criminal justice policies by introducing institutional due process arrangements and normative moral principles, whereas crimmigration control focuses exclusively on seeking effectiveness through managing migrant populations.

10

11

In detail, Simester and Von Hirsch (2011, p 11) support that the purpose of criminal law involves a more punitive character that immigration law lacks due to its distinctively moral voice, which is clearly absent from the ‘condemnatory bite’ of criminal law. Similarly, Ashworth and Zedner (2014, p 4) note that immigration law entails measures, traditionally designed to prevent third-​country nationals from entering a foreign country and ensuring their removal and return to their country of origin, thus confirming the opinion of Dores (2013, p 146) that in crimmigration, ‘the exacerbated stimulation of the strongest social identities tries to crush new identities’. Being a supporter of the opinion that the role of membership is critical to the study of crimmigration, Stumpf (2013, p 15) acknowledged that ‘[c]‌onceptions of membership are fundamental to the two constituent parts of crimmigration law’, which include criminal law and immigration law, in the sense that crimmigration ‘combines the exclusionary, expulsive and expressive powers of criminal and immigration law over non-​citizens through exercises of authority at the zenith of government power: incarceration, detention, exclusion, and expulsion’. 46

Under the Research Lens

In most cases, the term ‘crimmigration’ has been used in the literature in order to interweave the terms ‘migration’ and ‘criminal attitude’ (such as Aas, 2011, p 332; Van der Woude et al, 2014, p 562), meaning that criminal behaviour –​punishable by law –​would be required. Following this premise, Di Molfetta and Brouwer (2019, p 303) support that crimmigration is nothing more than immigration law absorbing elements of the criminal justice system, while rejecting its procedural and normative safeguards. Also, Soliman (2019, p 229) argues that crimmigration tends to overemphasise the ability of the State ‘to control and exclude non-​citizens, while underestimating the role of supranational and transnational forces in determining migration policies’. Thus, even though crimmigration focuses on the State’s penal power, its centre of attention remains limited to the study of migration and, for this reason, by looking at migration control through the lens of crime control, scholars ‘risk squeezing global issues within the reductive frame of the nation state’. So, it appears that scholars widely support Stumpf ’s (2006, p 419) opinion that the crimmigration debate is based on the idea that ‘as criminal sanctions for immigration-​related conduct … continue to expand, aliens become synonymous with criminals’ (Van der Woude and Van Berlo, 2015, p 62). Nevertheless, despite the existing difference of opinion, it is argued for in the literature (Van der Woude et al, 2017, p 4) that this particular area of study has been relatively unexamined regarding the relation between immigration enforcement and criminal justice. As a result, crimmigration remains to this day a ‘fairly recent and largely abstract’ topic, structured mainly around the creation of immigration-​crime offences. Among others, these include incidents of administrative breaches of immigration law, such as the irregular entry or stay in a host country. With respect to the detention processes that follow the irregular entry of asylum-​seeking individuals in host countries, Aas (2014, pp 521, 524) has acknowledged that penal power may result in territorial exclusion when exercised over individuals without formal membership, as presented earlier, which leads to a new form of penality, termed ‘bordered penality’. To this end, non-​citizens, such as migrants, are often seen as criminals and their actions are followed by different treatment and standard of rights, as opposed to what citizens would normally be entitled to. However, this opinion is based on the idea that detention should be geared towards removing adult third-​country nationals from the host country’s territory. Immigration detention is most commonly referred to in the literature (see Bosworth, 2019, p 86; Bosworth and Vannier, 2019, p 2) as an administrative form of custody, which is primarily designed to facilitate the removal or deportation of individuals or to allow for their identification upon arrival in host countries. For this reason, it is considered an intrinsic part of national criminal justice systems. In fact, according to Bowling and Westenra (2018, p 174), 47

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

strict policies that consider irregular entry to be a criminal offence inevitably affect the foundation of national frameworks, thus creating the need for immigration detention, which is viewed as a ‘bureaucratic function regulated by administrative law’. So, it appears that detention in this case creates a rather unique procedural palindrome that corroborates the criminalisation of migration. As a result, this context invokes a ‘circular rationale that legitimises detention: migrants might be criminals, necessitating detention; migrants must be criminals, because they are detained’ (Mountz et al, 2013, p 527). Notwithstanding, with regard to the positionality of unaccompanied children within the crimmigration debate, Lelliott (2019, p 277) notices that a crimmigration control system may curtail the minors’ rights as ‘to date there has been little specific consideration of unaccompanied minors and their rights at international law in the context of crimmigration’. Additionally, Wernesjö (2012, p 500) supports that little attention has been devoted to the minors’ adverse experiences, which confirms that further research in this field is needed. Hence, when it comes to the issue of UAM detention processes, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, during his follow-​ up visit to Greece (UN Office of the High Commissioner, 201612), noted that ‘detention can never be in the best interests of a child. Even under the guise of “protective custody”, it is utterly unacceptable for children to be administratively detained’. This proves that when unaccompanied children are subjected to detention, a clear violation of their right to liberty occurs, as this setting is not in any way similar to the processes which would apply when third-​country nationals or stateless individuals would be subjected to an administrative form of detention, pending deportation. Concerning this project’s scope of study in particular, it has already been demonstrated in previous chapters that at the time this research took place, UAM detention in Greece would apply only under specific circumstances. Therefore, a question is hereby raised as regards whether this form of detention leads to the criminalisation of unaccompanied children. On this matter, Bosworth et al (2018b, p 38) note that border control measures ‘may even override a prison sentence, as detention and deportation erode the original aims and justifications of punishment’. This would also apply in the case of unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon arrival in Greece, which confirms that the hybridisation of preventive and punitive measures exemplifies crimmigration in the sense of looking at migration matters through the lens of security (Bourbeau, 2019, p 91). 12

UN Office of the High Commissioner (2016), UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants concludes his follow up country visit to Greece, 16 May 2016. Available from www. ohchr.org/e​ n/s​ ta​teme​nts/​2016/​05/​un-​spec​ial-​rap​porte​ ur-h ​ uman-r​ igh ​ ts-m ​ igran ​ ts-c​ onclu​ des-​his-​fol​low-​coun​try-​visit 48

Under the Research Lens

In any case, the conditions of detention that unaccompanied children are subjected to, must comply with international regulations and human rights instruments, which include the Convention, the CRC and the ECHR. In addition, according to FRA (201013) detention must be applied in a non-​ degrading manner, which can be accomplished by placing unaccompanied children in regularly reviewed facilities so that their compliance with the ‘best interests of the child’ principle is safeguarded. However, the recent case-​law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) demonstrates that Art. 3 CRC has been repeatedly violated in Greece,14 especially with regard to cases of unaccompanied children experiencing detention practices upon irregular entry into the country.15 It appears that the ECtHR does not specifically prohibit UAM detention processes, rather adopts a restrictive approach on the matter by suggesting that detention would be possible only as a measure of last resort and only under extraordinary circumstances.16 For this reason, the Committee has invited the Greek authorities in the past decade to pursue their efforts so that detained UAM would be promptly removed from such facilities and further referred to appropriate accommodation structures of a more long-term character.17 13

14

15

16

17

European Union: European Agency for Fundamental Rights (2010), Separated, asylum-​ seeking children in European Union Member States: Comparative report, December 2010. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4ecf71​aeb.html For example, in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/​09), available from www. refwo​rld.org/​cases,ECHR,4d39bc​7f2.html; in Rahimi v. Greece (application no. 8687/​08), available from www.refwo​rld.org/​cases,ECHR,4d9c3e​482.html; in Sh.D. and others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia (application no. 14165/​16), available from http://​hudoc.echr.coe.int/​eng?i=​001-​193​610; in H.A. and others v. Greece (application no. 19951/​16), available from www.refwo​rld.org/​cases,ECHR,5c780a​0d7.html Specifically in Sh.D. and others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia (application no. 14165/​16), available from http://​hudoc.echr.coe.int/​eng?i=​ 001-1​ 936​ 10, the Court ruled that to be detained in police stations was ‘apt to arouse in the persons concerned feelings of isolation from the outside world, with potentially negative repercussions on their physical and mental well-​being’. This argument acted as the basis for future Court decisions, including H.A. and others v. Greece (application no. 19951/​16), available from www.refwo​rld.org/​cases,ECHR,5c780a​0d7.html According to the ECHR, UAM detention is not considered to be an ipso facto violation of human rights, unless a certain link exists between the circumstances under which detention is carried out as well as the reason and purpose of the applied measure. Hence, it almost seems that the legality of the applied measure would eventually cease to exist if there would be no direct connection to the purpose of detention. On this matter, the Greek Council for Refugees (2014, p 7) has argued that the national legislation should be revised, ‘in order to guarantee that “unaccompanied minors should never be detained”, in line with Recommendation 1900 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’ (Greek Council for Refugees (2014) Report to the UN Human Rights Committee on Detention Issues (ICCPR art. 7, 9 and 10) in view of its 49

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Nonetheless, despite the pressing need for the rights of unaccompanied children to be protected and promoted upon arrival in Greece, it appears that to this day their legal status in the course of detention has remained unclear. Thus, this study will make a crucial addition to research by exploring the link between the crimmigration debate and UAM detention processes, as they currently apply in Greece. In addition, after examining the status of detained UAM, focus will be placed on whether unaccompanied children were ever able to express themselves freely during detention. Hence, based on the fact that to be able to hear the voice of unaccompanied children is essential in the refugee reception process and a sine qua non in assessing the accurate implementation of the CRC within the national policy, a review of Art. 12 CRC on the right of children to be heard will now commence.

Voicing children Recent studies in the field of children’s rights have shown that detention can have detrimental effects on the well-​being of children, regardless of the conditions or its duration (see International Detention Coalition, 2012,18 p 48; European Asylum Support Office, 2019,19 p 51; UNICEF, 2019,20 p 2). In fact, detention is known to create a situation of stress and anxiety for those who experience it, often coupled with symptoms which are consistent with post-​traumatic stress disorder, whereas a significant amount of damage might also be caused to the detained individuals’ long-​term cognitive health and development (Keller et al, 2003, p 1722).

18

19

20

113th Session, GCR, Athens, Greece), which in para. 5(1) specifically states that the Committee of Ministers should focus on preparing ‘rules on minimum standards of conditions of detention for irregular migrants and asylum seekers’, in order to provide ‘a parallel framework to the European Prison Rules’. The latter would be achieved by drawing inspiration from the European Prison Rules but nevertheless recognising that said Rules ‘are applicable to persons not detained on the basis of having committed any criminal offence’. Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1900 (2010) The detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe, 28 January 2010, REC 1900 (2010). Available from https://www.refworld.org/docid/4b6bee412.html International Detention Coalition (2012), Captured childhood: Introducing a new model to ensure the rights and liberty of refugee, asylum seeker and irregular migrant children affected by immigration detention. Melbourne: International Detention Coalition. Available from www. refwo​rld.org/​docid/​510a60​4c2.html European Asylum Support Office (2019), Judicial analysis: Detention of applicants for international protection in the context of the Common European Asylum System. European Asylum Support Office Professional Development Series for members of courts and tribunals. Available from www.easo.eur​opa.eu/​sites/​defa​ult/​files/​Detent​ion-​JA-​EN-​PDF.pdf The UN International Children’s Emergency Fund (2019), Alternatives to immigration detention of children, Unicef Working Paper. Available from www.uni​cef.org/​media/​58351/​ file/A ​ ltern ​ ativ​ es%20to%20Immig​ rati​ on%20Det​ enti​ on%20of%20C​hild​ren%20(ENG).pdf 50

Under the Research Lens

Similarly, with respect to the migration context, unaccompanied children fleeing their countries of origin in search of safe destinations are in their majority particularly limited in the way they communicate their thoughts during reception and asylum procedures upon arrival in host countries. This occurs mainly because children tend to prefer silence as a form of self-​ expression (Papadopoulos, 2002, p 279), which is most commonly caused by two specific factors. The primary factor would be vulnerability, which confirms that time is needed for the healing process to take place. After all, silence is nothing more than a vessel towards managing physical, as well as mental, pain (for example, Jacobson and Landau, 2003, p 8; Kohli, 2006, p 712). This is referred upon in the literature as ‘psychological hypothermia’ (Kohli, 2006, p 710) that individuals often struggle to overcome, meaning that those who experienced forced migration need ample time and psychological space in order to self-​reflect on their past experiences, protect their well-​being and take the next step forward with their lives.21 In addition to vulnerability, the secondary factor would be resilience, suggesting that children are capable of developing the cognitive strength that is needed in order to overcome any past experiences of significant adversity or trauma and aim for a better future (see Rousseau et al, 1998, p 618; Luthar and Cicchetti, 2000, p 858). As a result, asylum seekers are often reluctant or afraid to share the detailed truth about their past, as part of their own survival strategy, thus making it difficult for researchers to accurately encapsulate the participants’ background story and experiences. When it comes to safeguarding the rights of unaccompanied children in specific, it has been supported in the literature (such as Hodgkin and Newell, 2007, p 150; Parkes, 2013, p 91) that the right to be heard is a substantive procedural right, which further sets the ground for every CRC right to be exercised in the minors’ favour. For this reason, Rap (2019, p 10) argues that it is of crucial importance to correctly implement the right to be heard, especially when looking into ‘the actual and potential currency of children’s participation in immigration proceedings’ (Stalford, 2018, p 261). This is consistent with Bhabha and Young’s (1999, p 90) opinion that Art. 12 CRC is vital in imposing ‘procedural responsibilities on those adjudicating asylum claims’. Nevertheless, before engaging in a discussion and inviting unaccompanied children to recall any traumatic experiences of their past, researchers must first take on an informing and facilitating role and provide participants 21

According to Kohli (2006, p 710), similar to the most common physiological effects of hypothermia, which include impaired judgement and lack of coordination, forced migration may cause individuals to experience temporary disorientation, which resembles a symptom usually caused by an actual low body core temperature. 51

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

with guidance in the correct exercise of the CRC rights (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012, p 136). However, certain matters must be taken into consideration first. For example, there may be numerous linguistic and cultural differences between the researcher and the participant. Therefore, in most cases both the accurate planning of the session, as well as the sensitive handling of specific discussion topics would certainly be required, so that implementation difficulties would be avoided.22 Still, even if such matters are resolved, the researcher must ensure the correct application of Art. 12(2) CRC, which provides children with the right to be heard as regards the judicial and administrative proceedings that affect their status. This way, with the help of the researcher, children can make use of this particular right and express themselves openly about these proceedings, if they so wish. According to Krappmann (2010, p 502), the phrase ‘to be heard’ under Art. 12(2) CRC is more judicial, as it encompasses one’s right to be heard concerning certain judicial and administrative matters and not simply form an opinion. On the other hand, Art. 12(1) CRC establishes that children’s views must be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, in the sense that children must be viewed as individuals capable of making decisions about themselves and having those decisions respected. Stemming from the latter, when it comes to applying Art. 12 CRC in practice, the Committee (2009,23 p 12) is clear on the fact that barriers must be eliminated so that legal processes are eventually more accessible and child-​appropriate. In fact, the Committee (2012,24 p 9) has clarified the importance of taking into full account the views of the child under all circumstances. This is also supported by Freeman (2007, p 7) who argues that Art. 12 CRC allows children to hold certain rights and have the integrity, personality and ability to participate in the society and articulate their opinion

22

23

24

When it comes to cultural aspects in particular, Herlihy et al (2012, p 668) support that ‘children from individualistic cultures provide more elaborate, detailed, specific and self-​focused autobiographical memories than children from collectivistic cultures’. Notwithstanding, the fact that children are rarely free to express their own opinions is an issue that must be looked into by the host country’s national authorities, especially when migrant minors share a different opinion than their families’, which eventually results in them not speaking openly about the matters that have an effect on them. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), General Comment No. 12 (2009): The right of the child to be heard, 20 July 2009, CRC/​C/​GC/​12. Available from www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​4ae562​c52.html UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report of the 2012 Day of General Discussion on the Rights of All Children in the Context of International Migration, 28 September 2012. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​ 51efb6​fa4.html 52

Under the Research Lens

in a free manner. Similarly, Lansdown (2005, p 23) believes that children will not acquire a consistent level of capacity across all fields, rather only in areas that affect them; therefore, they can share their personal experiences, expectations and abilities, albeit only concerning specific areas of interest. For this reason, the Committee has emphasised that special attention has to be paid to the right of children to be heard in immigration, asylum and refugee procedures (2006,25 p 8; 2009, p 27; 2017,26 p 9), so that migrant minors are ‘provided with all relevant information in their own language on their entitlements; the services available, including means of communication and the immigration and asylum process, in order to make their voice heard and be given due weight in the proceedings’. In addition, the UNHCR (2012,27 p 16) has stated that ‘Effective participation recognises children and adolescents as right-​holders, it builds their capacity and resilience and allows them to protect themselves and their peers’. However, in the case of Greece, the issue of whether unaccompanied children are provided with the right to be heard after arriving in the country and being subjected to detention processes, remains a highly under-​ researched area of study. Hence, based on the analysis that preceded, when it comes to identifying the status of detained UAM in Greece and assessing whether Art. 12 CRC is being correctly applied in their favour, it appears that a unique procedural phenomenon is occurring in practice, which the author identifies and refers to as the ‘vicious circle of UAM detention’, as shown in Figure 4.1. More specifically, it was discussed in previous chapters that according to the law unaccompanied children must be placed in a protective environment after entering the country in an irregular manner,28 pending referral to suitable 25

26

27

28

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Day of General Discussion on the Right of the Child to be heard, Forty-​third session, 29 September 2006. Available from www2.ohchr. org/​engl​ish/​bod​ies/​crc/​docs/​dis​cuss​ion/​Fina​l_​Re​comm​enda​tion​s_​af​ter_​DGD.doc UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), 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 on the general principles regarding the human rights of children in the context of international migration, 16 November 2017, CMW/​C/​GC/​ 3-​CRC/​C/​GC/​22. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​5a2f9f​c34.html UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2012), A Framework for the Protection of Children, 26 June 2012. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4fe875​682.html According to Art. 31 of Directive 2011/​95/​EU, national authorities are expected to ensure that the minors’ needs are adequately covered upon irregular entry and that they are placed in specialised centres or in any other appropriate units. This provision was originally implemented in the Greek law under Art. 32 of PD 141 of 2013, as eventually replaced by Art. 32 of Act 4636 of 2019, according to which unaccompanied minors must be placed ‘… (c) in special centres for the accommodation of minors; or (d) in other accommodation suitable for minors …’ and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, 53

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Figure 4.1: The vicious circle of UAM detention • Temporary accommodation

• Criminal proceedings Custody of a protective character

Detention processes

Art. 3 CRC

Art. 12 CRC • Right to be heard in proceedings

• ‘Best interests of the child’ principle

long-​term accommodation. In fact, the CRC states that throughout the time they spend in this protective setting, unaccompanied children must be provided with appropriate support and services,29 as previously described. It appears that the element of vulnerability not only engages the States’ positive obligations towards migrant minors under Art. 3 CRC, but also takes precedence over their status as illegal immigrants (Council of Europe, 2017,30 p 63). Under this premise, McCafferty (2017, p 330) notes that ‘the lack of any prescribed opportunities for children to formally express their views … represents a direct contradiction to the aspirations of safeguarding and human rights legislation and guidance’.

29

30

as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. This context, which the author refers to as ‘custody of a protective character’, is presented in detail in Chapter 2. According to Art. 22(1) CRC, ‘States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which said States are Parties’. A detailed analysis of Art. 22 CRC is provided in Chapter 2. Council of Europe Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Legal and practical aspects of effective alternatives to detention in the context of migration: Analysis of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), 7 December 2017. Available from https://​r m.coe. int/​legal-​and-​practi​cal-​aspe​cts-​of-​effect​ive-​alter​nati​ves-​to-​detent​ion-​in-​/​168​08f6​99f 54

Under the Research Lens

Therefore, the ‘best interests of the child’ principle appears to be strongly interrelated with the ‘right to be heard’, the latter being an integral part in the process of providing migrant minors with the information that is needed, so that they are fully aware of the matters that affect their status during detention. Hence, when it comes to detained UAM in Greece, both Art. 3 CRC and Art. 12 CRC are expected to apply in favour of unaccompanied children at all times, regardless of the procedure that they are subjected to upon arrival in the country. On this matter, the Committee (2009, p 11, 12) supports that under Art. 12(2) CRC, migrant minors should be heard freely as regards ‘all relevant judicial proceedings affecting the child, without limitation’, including family law and criminal law proceedings as well as health care and migration issues. Nevertheless, in practice when unaccompanied children enter Greece, they are usually subjected to a rather unique hybrid detention setting, the nature and legal scope of which requires further research and analysis. Thus, if this study’s findings conclude that the form of detention that unaccompanied children experience upon arrival in the country acts strictly as a temporary replacement measure to custody of a protective character, as presented earlier, that would mean that the right to be heard would not apply in the minors’ favour, because detention in this case would not be considered an administrative process as stipulated in Art. 12(2) CRC. Resulting to the latter, detained UAM would not have the right to express themselves in a free manner regarding the matters that affect them, including the detention proceedings they are subjected to. Alternatively, if it is confirmed that said detention process has administrative elements, one would expect that Art. 12 CRC would apply, hence detained UAM would have the right to be heard. Nonetheless, this would mean that the form of detention that unaccompanied children experience shares similarities with criminal incarceration due to its supposedly administrative character. However, clearly this assumption would be incorrect, as the national framework in Greece specifically dictates that unaccompanied children can be placed in detention after entering the country in an irregular manner, albeit under exceptional circumstances and on a short-term basis until they are referred to appropriate hosting structures, as already discussed. Consequently, detained UAM in Greece appear to be caught in a vicious circle where the detention setting which they experience remains unclear both on a legal as well as on a procedural level. Thus, in the following chapters this study will focus on unexplored aspects of detention processes for unaccompanied children, aiming to identify the status of detained UAM in the Greek context and furthermore reach a conclusion on whether Art. 12 CRC is being applied correctly in their favour.

55

5

Recruitment and Data Collection The main gateway to the recruitment process was through organisations of the humanitarian sector. Hence, as soon as this project received ethical approval,1 the author contacted all active NGOs that were based in the wider area of N. Greece2 and operated child-​protection programmes at the time. During the initial communication, which was held via e-​mail and phone, the author briefly introduced himself, explained his role as researcher and requested an appointment in order to present the project in detail. For this reason, each NGO was provided with an ‘Invitation Letter’ and a ‘Participant Information Sheet’ describing the research aims. Soon, a formal meeting was arranged with representatives of the organisations that showed interest in the topic. During the meeting, the author clarified the project’s scope of study and responded to questions. As soon as the discussion reached its end, the NGOs that participated were asked to forward said ‘Invitation Letter’ and ‘Participant Information Sheet’ to their respective child-​protection programmes so that potential participants could be recruited.3 The interviews occurred in three consecutive stages. An introductory overview of the followed process will be presented at this point, whereas detailed information about each individual stage will be provided as the chapter progresses, coupled with an exploration regarding the relation between IPA and focus groups in contemporary research. During the first stage, unaccompanied children were invited to share their lived experiences after having been subjected to detention upon

1

2 3

Before proceeding to the second and third interview stage, an application for a substantial amendment was also submitted and ethical approval was acquired accordingly. Specific names of locations are not revealed due to confidentiality reasons. It was clarified that all potential future participants would be given 48 hours in order to decide whether they would be interested in taking part in this study, in which case they would be expected to declare it either in written form or verbally. This way coercion was avoided and their final decision was not biased in any way. 56

Recruitment and Data Collection

irregular entry into Greece. Therefore, emphasis was primarily placed on understanding the conditions of detention and exploring how the law applied in practice between the years 2016 and 2020, as discussed earlier. By giving voice to children, their ‘visions of life’ (Clavering and McLaughlin, 2010, p 607) were brought to the surface, along with important details concerning the real face of detention. This process allowed the author to focus on the research aims, namely to examine the positionality of detained UAM in Greece within the context of crimmigration and assess whether the right to be heard was applied correctly in the minors’ favour. However, in order to shed light on these so far unexamined areas of study, it was crucial to also look into UAM detention from the perspective of professionals. So, after completing the analysis of the first interview stage findings, the author proceeded to the second stage. At this point, practitioners with work experience in child-​protection programmes and unaccompanied children in particular, were invited to share their knowledge with regard to the research aims, add extra validity to the findings and bring consistency to the emergent discussion themes. Following the same procedure, after completing the analysis of the findings, the author proceeded to the third stage, during which professionals of the humanitarian sector engaged in a discussion and provided their insights in the form of a focus group session. According to Heidegger, IPA is compatible with the aim of focus groups, in the sense that meaning may emerge from interactions with other participants as a reciprocal dialogue (see Webb and Kevern, 2001, p 800; Laverty, 2003, p 19). As will be elaborated upon later in this chapter, the author followed this opinion and applied the IPA methodology during the third stage of interviews in order to gain a different perspective through the collaborative discussion and interaction among focus group members. All the interviews were held in English, with the help of interpreters when required, and the duration of each session varied from 45 to 90 minutes in total. Moreover, the interviews were audio-​recorded, transcribed verbatim and processed under the guidelines of the IPA methodology (Smith, 2011, p 15). Given that English was not the native language for the majority of participants, a re-​transcription of the original interview transcripts took place during the analysis that followed, so that the written language would become more understandable. Therefore, all the idiosyncrasies, used metaphors (Pringle et al, 2011, p 21) and expressions were kept intact, whereas linguistic devices such as short and long pauses, often caused by the participants’ efforts to express themselves in an understandable manner, were not analysed further. This way knowledge was built and the author was able to become fully immersed in the data by examining how participants understood their experiences. 57

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

At the start of each interview stage, the author ensured that all participants were informed in full about every aspect of the process. In order to maintain a high ethical standard and an excellent relationship between research, practice and policy (Gifford et al, 2007, p 415), participants were asked to carefully read and then sign a ‘Consent Form’, which entailed all the necessary information about this study (Gates and Waight, 2007, p 117). At the end of each interview stage, participants were also provided with a ‘Confidentiality Agreement’ which they were asked to sign, as well as a ‘Debriefing Sheet’ thanking them for taking part in this study. All documents were drafted in English and translated to the participants’ native language with the assistance of interpreters. A similar interview schedule was used in all three stages and participants were facilitated so that they could tell their story in their own words without limiting their expressed interests (Biggerstaff and Thompson, 2008, p 217). This way, their statements were explored in detail (Palmer et al, 2010, p 100) and rapport was successfully established. More specifically, throughout the semi-​structured interviews (Eatough et al, 2008, p 1770), the author guided the participants by using ‘minimal probes’ (Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 63) and monitored the effect that the interview had on them. Instead of attempting to test his own predetermined hypotheses, the author framed the research questions broadly with the main aim being to provide participants with a strong role in the interview process so that they would ‘explore flexibly and in detail, an area of concern’ (Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 55). As will be presented in this chapter, at the start of the interview participants were asked to share information about their background. This was achieved through the use of opening questions (see Smith and Eatough, 2006, p 325; Skourteli and Apostolopoulou, 2015, p 19), whereas discussion topics that were particularly sensitive were held back and introduced later as the interview progressed (Smith et al, 2009, p 68). Thus, participants were invited to articulate their stories, thoughts, feelings and experiences, which enabled ‘fine-​grained and contextual analyses of the phenomenon under investigation’ (Bramley and Eatough, 2005, p 225). During the interview sessions, the author used his own conceptions in order to understand the participants’ personal lived experiences (Maynard et al, 2019, p 12). This way, through a process of strict interpretative activity bounded in IPA, an exploration occurred concerning the way events were given meaning by participants, without constraining or influencing their responses. Additionally, the fact that the author refrained from leading the participants in a particular direction led to a fruitful dialogue, as the questions were modified in light of the participants’ responses (Eatough et al, 2008, p 1772). This process allowed the author to probe into the discussion and locate interesting themes. 58

Recruitment and Data Collection

Before reaching the end of each interview stage, participants were invited to express their thoughts and ideas concerning the first thing that they would change if they had the power and the means to improve the conditions in detention centres for unaccompanied children. This question led to interesting inputs, as participants shared their honest opinions and insights on the matter. In fact, they were particularly open to elaborate in depth regarding the ways in which they would improve the context of UAM detention in Greece as it applied at the time this research took place and also suggested alternative measures to detention. Upon completion of the interviews, participants were provided with a verbal summary of their statements (see Carradice et al, 2002, p 18; Collins and Nicolson, 2002, p 618), in order to ensure that their views were perfectly understood and so that they would have the option to include additional information or comments if they wanted to. The latter added to the co-​ construction of knowledge, which was elaborated upon in detail earlier in this study during the presentation of this project’s methodological approach. Subsequently, the analysis of the findings commenced and the author reviewed different accounts of experience concerning the context of UAM detention and proceeded to addressing the research aims accordingly. As will be depicted in the following chapters, the analysis confirmed that different groups of participants identified similar matters. That being so, the topics that emerged during the interviews led to coherent findings, which allowed for a phenomenological link to be established among them. As a general rule, IPA is based on reaching data saturation and for this reason sample size must be considered on a study-​by-​study basis (see Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 55; Reid et al, 2005, p 22; Smith et al, 2009, p 38). Hence, in the case of this research project the author applied the ‘idiographic’ element4 of IPA (for example, Smith et al, 1997, p 87; Smith et al, 1999, p 220; Smith, 2004, p 41), which is known to have an impact ‘towards the lower end’ of possible participants’ size (see Brocki and Wearden, 2006, p 94; Eatough and Smith, 2008, p 186). This means that in practice the participants’ accounts were examined in greater depth compared to a descriptive approach5. As a result, usable data 4

5

The ‘idiographic’ element of interpretative phenomenology dictates that a certain degree of closure with the in-​depth examination of a single case must be reached before the researcher proceeds to the next one, thus allowing for a cross-​case analysis of the emergent discussion themes to occur, based either on convergence or divergence of scope (see Smith, 2004, p 41; 2011, p 10). A detailed presentation of IPA is provided in Chapter 2. According to Matua and Van Der Wal (2015, p 24), in descriptive phenomenology the researcher focuses on describing the first-​hand experience being investigated. However, in interpretive phenomenology focus is placed on a deeper understanding of the experience, so that hidden meanings are revealed. Therefore, interviews conducted under the scope of IPA are considered more effective in providing clear research results, as they move 59

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

was extracted from fewer participants and a richer analysis was eventually attained, which might have been inhibited with the use of a larger sample. Under this premise, in both the first and the second interview stage the research sample consisted of 11 participants, whereas detailed information about the focus group session will be provided later in this chapter.

Listening to the minors’ insights In the first interview stage, unaccompanied children were invited to share their memories and recollections with regard to the conditions they experienced during detention upon arrival in Greece. Given their young age, certain factors were taken into consideration, such as their cognitive ability, emotional state and vulnerability. For this reason, it was clarified to them and also provided in writing, as part of the ‘Consent Form’ that they had the right to withdraw at any moment, up until the end of the interview session.6 As was previously mentioned, an interpreter was always present, thus allowing for the formed questions and responses to be properly communicated between the researcher and the participants (see Smith, 2004, p 50; Thommessen et al, 2015, p 376). To this end, questions were translated into the participants’ native language and their responses were immediately translated back into English. This allowed for the ‘double hermeneutic’7 process of IPA to evolve and reach a level where a ‘third hermeneutic’ process was occurring, as the interpreter was trying to make sense of the narrative between the researcher and the participant, while trying to make sense of the participant’s world (Miqdadi, 2015, p 52).8

6

7

8

beyond mere description. A thorough analysis of this study’s methodological approach is provided in Chapter 2. In order to ensure the participants’ emotional well-​being as well as increase their feeling of security while eliminating any suspicion of coercion or pressure towards them, all unaccompanied children were given the option to take part in the interview either on their own or in the presence of an NGO staff member of their choosing. In that case, said member of staff would be able to act on behalf of the participant and withdraw at any time until the end of the interview session. The author retained the same right, in case minors would feel overwhelmed or experience emotional distress during the interview. As discussed in Chapter 2, the ‘double hermeneutic’ element of IPA is based on the premise that ‘participants are trying to make sense of their world, while the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world’ (see Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 53; Smith et al, 2009, p 36; Eatough and Smith, 2017, p 205). The use of interpreters in qualitative research has been addressed in the literature with emphasis placed both on verbal and non-​verbal elements of communication (Edwards, 1998, p 201). According to Taylor (2008, p 450), language interpreters are capable of maintaining a deep connection with the community in the sense of ‘taking care of them’. The latter was evident during the first stage of interviews, as participants were willing to respond openly to the asked questions due to the presence of an interpreter who helped 60

Recruitment and Data Collection

All sessions during this stage were held within the premises of a safe zones9 which were located in the wider area of N. Greece, operating under NGO administration. As a result, participants were already familiar with the establishments and felt comfortable throughout the interviewing process. This context helped them participate in an uninterrupted way. Additionally, unaccompanied children were provided with the option to carry out the interview using screen translation, in case they did not want an interpreter to be physically present in the room. However, every participant asked for an interpreter to be present throughout the session. To avoid a potential generalisation of the findings, the sampling strategy in each interview stage was criterion-​based (Pycroft et al, 2015, p 426). Hence, participation was based on self-​selection and was limited to children aged 15 to 18 years old,10 who had already been registered as international protection applicants at the time the interviews took place. Furthermore, all participants had been arrested for entering the country in an irregular manner and further subjected to detention for a minimum period of 24 hours. Lastly, they were all male due to the fact that when this research was conducted, child-protection programmes for unaccompanied female migrant minors specifically were not operating in the wider area of N. Greece. Certain matters had to be examined in depth, therefore the interviewing process required that the author initially worked towards gaining the participants’ trust, while helping them overcome their traumatic experiences.11 For this reason, multiple sessions and follow-​up meetings were held with participants on an individual basis before the actual interviews took

9

10

11

them overcome any potential concerns and feel comfortable and further encouraged them to engage in a conversation. This way, the author was able to be immersed in the interview and collect valuable data. The interviews took place in rooms that were originally designed to host meetings between unaccompanied children and NGO members of staff, including caseworkers, child psychologists, educators and asylum advisors. When this research was conducted, short-​term accommodation facilities for unaccompanied children in Greece included emergency hotels and safe zones, which are presented in detail in Chapter 3. The applicable law (originally PD 141 of 2013, as replaced by Art. 36 (8) of Act. 4375 of 2016, amended by Act 4540 of 2018 and eventually replaced by Act 4636 of 2019, as the latter was amended by Act 4686 of 2020) stipulates that minors between the ages of 15 and 18 are considered capable of submitting an application for international protection independently and in person. However, if a minor is younger than the age of 15, the minor’s guardian is expected to submit said application on behalf of the minor. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 – see disclaimer. According to Flanagan (2003, p 165), ‘[t]‌he essence of trust is the belief that others are fair, that they will not take advantage of us, although they could. The latter point is essential to the phenomenon of trust. That is, trust is premised on freedom. Because the behaviour of others is not under our control, trust is an act of faith, never fully certain’. 61

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

place. In order to achieve a research result of the highest quality, participant observation was conducted prior to and over the course of this study during both formal and informal meetings, so that contextual understanding of the findings would be acquired. Nevertheless, despite said meetings, few participants at the start of their individual interview session experienced emotional distress when attempting to recall information in relation to the conditions they experienced in detention. As a result, they were particularly reserved with regard to their responses. This situation prompted the author to pause the interview and hold informal sessions with them, so that they would express their worries, overcome their concerns and form any questions they would want to. In the course of these sessions and after taking into consideration the complexity that is inherent in childhood (see Hunleth, 2011, p 86; Spyrou, 2011, p 158), the author was able to re-​introduce himself, present the context of the interviews once again and describe in detail the overall scope of the study, so that everything would be perfectly understood. Furthermore, it was again clarified to the participating unaccompanied children that participation was voluntary and that they maintained the right to withdraw at any moment until the end of the interview.12 By the end of the held discussions, participants had managed to overcome their initial concerns and any unwillingness to participate (Hancilova and Knauder, 2011, p 84) as well as trust issues and power imbalances (Oh, 2012, p 286). These were often followed by feelings of uncertainty and complete rightlessness, which are rather common among migrant minors upon arrival in host countries (Papadopoulos and Van Buggenhout, 2020, p 3). According to them, their participation served a higher purpose which was the protection and well-​being of every unaccompanied child in the migration context. This thought helped them proceed with the interview and engage in a vivid discussion, respond openly and without hesitation to the research questions and share their experiences in detail concerning the study’s aims. With regard to the research population,13 at the time of the interview five participants had already applied for family reunification processes with a 12

13

Interestingly, throughout the held sessions there were no support mechanisms available for the author whatsoever. This resulted in a particularly overwhelming and emotionally demanding context overall, as the author often endured high levels of stress. Therefore, the discussions that were held with participants prior to the interviews served an additional purpose, as they assisted greatly so that the author would be able to rearrange his thoughts and proceed. The sample consisted of 11 participants. In detail, two participants were of Syrian origin, both 16 years old; four were from Pakistan, one of which was 16 years old and the other three were 17 years old; one was from Morocco, 17 years old; one from Libya, 17 years old; one from Algeria, 17 years old; one from Iraq, 17 years old; and one from Palestine, 17 years old. 62

Recruitment and Data Collection

relative residing in Europe under the provisions of the Dublin Regulation,14 whereas six had already applied for international protection15 (asylum) in Greece. The duration of detention that they had been subjected to varied from four days to 60 days. Of the 11 participants, only four requested a caseworker to be present during the interview,16 whereas the rest felt comfortable enough to take part in the discussion and respond to the research questions without the need to be accompanied by anyone else besides the interpreter, who was already present.17 The participants’ age, ethnic origin, duration of detention and legal status at the time the interviews took place are depicted in Table 5.1. The original names of participants are not revealed due to confidentiality reasons. Therefore, the letter M corresponds to a participant of the first interview stage, followed by a number which will indicate each participant’s response to the asked questions, as will be presented in the following chapters. In the context of the held interviews, the questions that were addressed to participants were divided into two groups. The first round focused on gathering information about their background, therefore unaccompanied

14

15

16

17

The original objective of the Dublin Regulation was to ensure quick access to the asylum procedures and establish the Member-​State of Europe that would be responsible to examine an application for international protection. In the case of unaccompanied children in specific, Art. 8(2) dictates that ‘[w]‌here the applicant is an unaccompanied minor who has a relative who is legally present in another Member State and where it is established, based on an individual examination, that the relative can take care of him or her, that Member State shall unite the minor with his or her relative and shall be the Member State responsible, provided that it is in the best interests of the minor’. The scope of the Dublin Regulation regarding family reunification processes under Art. 6(3), as well as the fact that the Dublin Regulation introduced the term ‘country of first entry’, as stipulated in Art. 3(2), are presented in Chapter 2. As presented in previous chapters, according to Art. 2(h) of Directive 2011/​95/​EU, an ‘application for international protection’ is ‘a request made by a third-​country national or a stateless person for protection from a Member State, who can be understood to seek refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and who does not explicitly request another kind of protection, outside the scope of this Directive, that can be applied for separately’. Following a series of amendments in the national law, this provision was eventually implemented in the Greek context under Art. 2(b) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020 and remained unaffected at the time of publication by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. Namely the first, second, seventh and eleventh participant, appearing in Table 5.1 with an asterisk next to the participant number. In those cases where participants requested a caseworker to be present, a ‘Confidentiality Agreement’ was provided to the caseworker at the end of the interview, which they were asked to sign before exiting the room. The interpreters who assisted during the individual interviews were also asked to sign a similar form. 63

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Table 5.1: UAM –​stage 1 Participant

Age

Ethnic origin

Duration of detention

Legal status

M1*

16

Syria

4 days

Dublin Process

M2*

16

Syria

7 days

Dublin Process

M3

16

Pakistan

45 days

Asylum in Greece

M4

17

Pakistan

30 days

Asylum in Greece

M5

17

Morocco

25 days

Dublin Process

M6

17

Pakistan

31 days

Asylum in Greece

M7*

17

Palestine

16 days

Asylum in Greece

M8

17

Libya

34 days

Dublin Process

M9

17

Pakistan

40 days

Asylum in Greece

M10

17

Algeria

32 days

Asylum in Greece

M11*

17

Iraq

60 days

Dublin Process

Note: * Only the first, second, seventh and eleventh participant requested a caseworker to be present during the interview.

children were asked to provide details concerning their family status, date of entry into Greece and reasons for fleeing their countries of origin. Arguably, the formed introductory questions were similar to those that protection officers had already addressed to minors during the reception and identification procedures that had already taken place upon their arrival in the country. Nevertheless, said questions did not cause any hesitation on behalf of the participants whatsoever. Subsequently, the author proceeded to the second round of questions and unaccompanied children were invited to elaborate on the procedures and the overall detention context that they had been subjected to upon arrival in the country. As soon as the first interview stage was completed, each audio-​recorded session was transcribed so that the IPA analysis would commence. During the analysis of the findings, the author stayed close to the participants’ accounts and then took a step back and performed an interpretative reading of their responses (Smith, 2004, p 45; 2011, p 10). This process involved the author keeping notes in one margin of the transcribed text, while delineating the structural elements of each individual interview, forming preliminary thoughts and identifying discrete story themes, as per the guidelines of IPA research. This way, important words as well as sentences or phrases that each participant had used were highlighted, followed by the author’s spontaneous reactions and reflections. Gradually, specific discussion themes were created, 64

Recruitment and Data Collection

which were used to make connections among the participants’ statements (Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 67). The latter was followed by a second reading of the transcribed interviews, during which certain themes happened to fall under the same areas of concern. This allowed the author to create superordinate headings, whereas other themes were dismissed or re-​conceptualised (Smith et al, 2009, p 96). After reaching a point of saturation by making sure that the gathered data were satisfactory in addressing this study’s research aims, the author followed the same procedure and each subsequent transcribed interview was processed accordingly. In order to avoid potential misrepresentations of the participants’ responses, the analysis of the text focused solely on content rather than repetition of words. Therefore, during the interviews, as well as during the evaluation of the transcripts, all the emergent issues concerning language details, such as used tenses, were not taken into consideration. Similarly, syntactical and grammatical errors were not corrected, so that the ‘voice of the child’ would not be affected or altered in any way. The same process was followed throughout all interview stages. Hence, the participants’ responses were kept with the original spelling and grammar and were not standardised.

Witnessing the practitioners’ experience After completing the analysis of the first interview stage, the author proceeded to holding individual interviews with practitioners. The sessions took place in the wider area of N. Greece and participants were interviewed at their workplace, in rooms that were originally designed to host meetings. All participants had extensive professional experience in the humanitarian sector, having worked in the migration setting both in Greece and abroad.18 In their majority, they held postgraduate degrees in their respective fields and they were all employed by NGOs that operated safe zones and child-​ protection programmes. Also, they were all multilingual and fully proficient in English, hence an interpreter was not required in this particular stage.

18

The sample consisted of three cultural mediators, also providing interpretation services; three caseworkers with a bachelor degree in psychology; one psychologist holding the position of ‘mental health and psychosocial support manager’ for an international humanitarian organisation; two social workers, one of which held the position of ‘child-​ protection manager’, while the other held the position of ‘senior area manager’ for an international child-​protection programme; one sociologist and one attorney at law specialising in children’s rights and migration law. Eight participants were of Greek origin and three were of different origin with excellent knowledge of the Greek language. 65

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Table 5.2: Practitioners –​stage 2 Participant

Ethnic origin

Work experience

Professional role

P1

Egypt

1 year

Cultural mediator

P2

Greece

8 months

Social worker

P3

Greece

9 months

Caseworker

P4

Greece

1 year

Caseworker

P5

Greece

1 year

Caseworker

P6

Greece

18 months

Social worker

P7

Egypt

2 years

Cultural mediator

P8

Greece

15 months

Psychologist

P9

Syria

2 years

Cultural mediator

P10

Greece

4 years

Attorney at law

P11

Greece

6 years

Sociologist

During the interviews, no emotional distress existed on the practitioners’ side. Instead, participants were particularly eager to share their thoughts as fully as possible and contribute to this study. As a result, the author was able to gain a different perspective concerning the research findings of the first stage. The practitioners’ ethnic origin, their experience in working with unaccompanied children and their professional role at the time the interviews took place are shown in Table 5.2. Similar to the previous stage, the names of participants are not revealed due to confidentiality reasons. Therefore, the letter P corresponds to a participant of the second interview stage, followed by a number which will indicate each participant’s response to the asked questions, as will be presented in the following chapters. An interview schedule similar to that of the previous stage was applied. In detail, open-​ended questions were used and practitioners were invited to elaborate in depth on the discussion topics. Following the same process, the formed questions were divided in two groups. Hence, through the use of introductory questions, participants were invited to elaborate on their current role in the context of migration, as well as provide information regarding their educational background and professional experience in working with vulnerable migrant populations and unaccompanied children in particular. At this point, the author was able to examine whether participants were familiar with the relevant provisions of the CRC and the Greek framework regarding children’s rights and more specifically UAM detention processes. This proved to be essential, as even though participants were already familiar with the CRC, it appeared that they were not that well informed concerning 66

Recruitment and Data Collection

the applicable national context, to which end the author had the opportunity to provide them with a brief analysis of the Greek law. Consequently, the second round of interviews took place and the author proceeded to discussing specific matters according to this study’s research aims. In the context of the interviews, practitioners were provided with quotes which were originally made by unaccompanied children19 during the first interview stage, with respect to the conditions they experienced in detention. Then, they were invited to comment on said quotes and share their insights on how they perceived the described conditions, based strictly on their professional experience and practical knowledge on the matter. This way, a process of ‘vignetting’20 took place (Finch, 1987, p 105) and coherence was achieved, which would not have been possible otherwise. In addition, the role of NGOs in protecting the rights of unaccompanied children was also discussed, followed by the practitioners’ input on whether they felt that they assisted towards this direction as professionals working in the humanitarian sector. Lastly, with respect to the conditions within detention facilities for unaccompanied children, participants were invited to share their thoughts on whether improvements were due. The latter sparked a lively discussion regarding possible alternatives to UAM detention procedures, which will be presented later in this study. This approach assisted the author towards building on a first set of information and gradually advancing forward, so that the findings of the data collection process would be intertwined. Thus, at the end of the interviews and during the analysis that followed, the author gave full appreciation to each account respectively (Smith et al, 2009, p 64) and organised the results based on similarities in the participants’ responses.

Combining IPA with focus groups With regard to the relation between focus groups and IPA, their use has met supporters both for and against (for example, Webb and Kevern, 2001;

19

20

The personal details of said minors were not revealed to participants during the second and the third interview stage, due to confidentiality reasons. According to Finch (1987, p 1, p 2), ‘vignettes’ are short stories about hypothetical characters in specified circumstances, to which the interviewee is invited to respond. In detail, Finch argues that ‘vignettes’ move away from a direct and abstracted approach and allow for certain features of that particular context to be specified. This way, the respondent is invited to make normative statements about a set of social circumstances, rather than to express his or her ‘beliefs’ or ‘values’ in a vacuum. It is a method which, in other words, acknowledges that meanings are social and that morality may well be situationally specific. 67

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Lambert and Loiselle, 2008; Bradbury Jones et al, 2009) and this difference of opinion is based on whether focus groups are compatible with the aim of phenomenological inquiry overall. In detail, when it comes to the use of focus groups in IPA research, the two opposing opinions are Husserl’s descriptive phenomenological approach and Heidegger’s hermeneutic approach, both of which were presented in detail earlier in this study, along with the analysis of this project’s methodology. It has been already discussed that the primary goal of phenomenology is to seek the ‘essential’ or ‘invariant’ characteristics of phenomena and that to achieve this, certain subjects must be shared with participants, who will then be asked to respond to research questions and describe their experiences of a particular phenomenon (Giorgi, 1989, p 72). Therefore, from a Husserlian perspective, which is based on the philosophy of obtaining pure and uncontaminated data through the process of ‘phenomenological reduction’,21 the use of focus groups in phenomenology contaminates data, which makes it impossible to obtain such in an untainted and unbiased form (for example, Wimpenny and Gass, 2000, p 1486; Webb and Kevern, 2001, p 801; Bradbury Jones et al, 2009, p 664). Likewise, Palmer et al (2010, p 100) argue that when it comes to focus groups, it is difficult to develop personal phenomenological accounts, especially due to the presence of multiple voices coupled with individual and shared contexts, as well as a fairly complex set of social and contextual relationships. To this end, Stewart and Shamdasani (2015, p 119) state that phenomeno­ logical research should focus on the subjective and idiosyncratic perceptions of individuals, thus agreeing with Giorgi (1997, p 236), who supports that phenomenology ‘thematises the phenomenon of consciousness, and, in its most comprehensive sense, it refers to the totality of the lived experiences that belong to a single person’. Under this premise, a phenomenological approach requires an individual describing his or her experiences in a relatively ‘uncontaminated’ way. For this reason, Webb and Kevern (2001, p 802) support that a discussion taking place within a focus group is certainly not compatible with a phenomenological research approach, due to the fact that the latter involves interaction among several participants. In addition, according to Hydén and Bülow (2003, p 309), group transcripts are often analysed with regard to the content of individual discussions. As a result, embodying focus groups in IPA research is a process that may cause tensions and significant challenges, because the balance between individual

21

As presented in Chapter 2, Husserl’s approach on ‘phenomenological reduction’ is based on removing ‘general positing’ and describing the essential structures of phenomena in a manner that is free of interpretation, thus allowing the researcher to investigate events without making assumptions or judgements about the world. 68

Recruitment and Data Collection

and group level data can easily be questioned, as ‘the presence of multiple voices and the interactional complexity of such events, does make it more difficult to infer and develop the phenomenological aspects of IPA’ (Smith et al, 2009, p 71). Similarly, Tomkins and Eatough (2010, p 246) support that the use of focus groups challenges the explicit idiographic commitment of IPA, mainly because, as a unit of analysis, focus groups eventually mask the idiosyncrasy of individual participants. Indeed, contemporary qualitative research confirms that individual interviews are widely used as a data collection approach (see Sandelowski, 2002, p 105; Nunkoosing, 2005, p 701). In fact, it is often demonstrated in the literature (such as Fielding, 1994; Loiselle et al, 2007; Streubert and Carpenter, 2011) that individual interviews are usually preferred when one aims to collect detailed accounts of the participants’ personal input concerning a certain incident, a phenomenon or an experience. Nevertheless, much has also been written in the field of social sciences regarding the use of focus groups in IPA as well (Barbour and Kitzinger, 1999). For example, Heidegger supports that meaning emerges from interactions with other people and objects via a system of mutual interdependence (for example, Conroy, 2003, p 38; Laverty, 2003, p 13). After all, the main characteristic of phenomenology is that it focuses on how individuals make sense of their world, their place in the world and how one becomes aware of it. Thus, according to Heidegger’s approach on the ontological question of being,22 focus groups can indeed be used in phenomenology, due to the fact that interaction and collaborative discussion among participants allow for valuable data to be provided. Adding to Heidegger’s theory, Lambert and Loiselle (2008, p 229) support that ‘[a]‌lthough individual interviews contribute in-​depth data to the research, the assumption that words are accurate indicators of participants’ inner experiences may be problematic’, which suggests that the researcher may never be fully capable of capturing the participants’ insights in the context of an individual interview. In fact, the latter might occur when participants decide to withhold their honest opinion,23 in which case this preference towards a particular perspective evidently results in biased findings. For this reason, according to scholars (for example, Freeman et al, 2001; Van Eyk and Baum, 2003; Duggleby, 2005; Bradbury Jones et al, 2009), 22

23

In an effort to refer to the way human beings exist and act, Heidegger used the term ‘being in the world’ rather than ‘being of the world’ (Ray, 1994, p 121). This issue, along with a detailed analysis of IPA, is discussed in Chapter 2. According to Fielding (1994), such incidents occur when the participant’s true opinion is inconsistent with the participant’s preferred self-​image or intention to impress the interviewer. 69

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

focus groups in IPA can be used as an alternative to individual interviews, the main aim being to uncover specific aspects of a phenomenon, ‘in ways that would be less easily accessible in a one-​to-​one interview’ (Kitzinger, 1995, p 299). Resulting to the latter, different aspects of a certain discussion topic are brought to the surface through the participants’ understanding of said topic (such as Morgan and Krueger, 1993, p 17; Morgan, 1997, p 8; Bloor et al, 2001, p 7; Krueger and Casey, 2015, p 39). Hence, the researcher can ‘capitalise on the interaction within a group and eventually elicit rich experiential data’ (Asbury, 1995, p 414). After all, the key feature of focus groups that differentiates them from other research methods is the researcher’s active encouragement towards participants to interact with one another, form questions and comment on each other’s opinions. Therefore, the role of researchers is highly important due to the fact that they are always attentive to group interaction (Barbour, 2014, p 134), which leads to data that would not have emerged if other methods had been applied instead (Webb and Kevern, 2001, p 800). As a result, this form of discussion among participants provides the researcher with a high level of data saturation and coherence (Krueger and Casey, 2015, p 73), because what focus group members say can either be confirmed and reinforced or contradicted within the group itself. It appears that the use of focus groups gradually becomes an increasing tendency in contemporary IPA research (Phillips et al, 2016, p 290). In fact, such sessions may take different forms in practice. This may include gaining access to pre-existing homogeneous groups with an interest in the research topic (Dunne and Quayle, 2001, p 680), ensuring a broad range of views (Earle et al, 2005, p 2885) or even using participants who have already participated in the study, so that they can discuss their experiences in group form (Sternheim et al, 2011, p 14). In any case, the important aspect according to Smith et al (2009, p 9) is that scholars can develop appropriate research strategies and make new ‘cultural and narrative themes’ available for analysis.

Holding a focus group session Following Heidegger’s approach and in an effort to move the research towards new directions, in the third stage of interviews a focus group meeting was arranged, the aim of which was to discuss specific matters with respect to detention processes for unaccompanied children in Greece. The group consisted of practitioners who shared characteristics pertinent to this particular study (Krueger and Casey, 2015, p 26). In detail, all participants had extensive professional experience in the context of migration and the field of children’s rights in particular. The focus group session took place in a conference room at the headquarters of a humanitarian organisation that was located in the wider area of N. Greece at the time. 70

Recruitment and Data Collection

Stemming from the premise that the prime objective of focus group interviews in hermeneutic phenomenological research is to obtain rich data (for example, Sim, 1998, p 347; Robinson, 1999, p 908; Webb and Kevern, 2001, p 798; McLafferty, 2004, p 188; Bradbury Jones et al, 2009, p 665), the author analysed the communication among focus group members, so that the research results would reach their full potential (Freeman, 2006, p 492). To this end, participants were encouraged to engage in the discussion, especially those who were quiet and shy, whereas the dominant talkers were respectfully managed (Barbour, 2014, p 138). Following Jasper’s (1996, p 780) argument that focus groups allow interviewees to elaborate on and share the raised issues, the author created an environment that inspired participants to interact with one another so that the dialogue among them would enhance the discussion results and consequently strengthen the credibility of the findings. With regard to the appropriate size of focus groups, Beyea and Nicoll (2000, p 899) mention that the recommended number of participants is between five and 15 people, as long as the formed group successfully represents the parts of society who would be interested in the research topic that is presented. Therefore, following the opinion of Gates and Waight (2007, p 112), the size of the focus group in this study was determined by the nature and the sensitivity of the topic. As a result, the group comprised seven practitioners of different academic and professional backgrounds, with work experience in the field of human rights and unaccompanied children in particular. 24 In their majority, participants held postgraduate degrees in their respective fields and they were employed by either national or international NGOs that operated child-​protection programmes in the migration context in N. Greece at the time. In addition, they all were multilingual and fully proficient in English, therefore an interpreter was not required during this stage. The participants’ ethnic origin, work experience and professional role at the time the focus group meeting took place are shown in Table 5.3. Similar to previous stages, the names of participants are not revealed due to confidentiality reasons. Hence, the letter F corresponds to a focus group member, followed by a number which will indicate each participant’s responses to the asked questions, as will be presented in the following chapters.

24

The sample consisted of a social worker, holding the position of senior child-​protection officer for an international humanitarian organisation; a psychologist; a social educator; a caretaker; a cultural mediator, also providing interpretation services; a social pedagogue; and a neuroscientist. Six members were of Greek origin and one was of foreign descent with excellent knowledge of the Greek language, having obtained Greek citizenship. 71

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Table 5.3: Focus group members –​stage 3 Participant

Ethnic origin

Work experience

Professional role

F1

Greece

2 years

Social worker

F2

Greece

6 months

Psychologist

F3

Greece

2 years

Social educator

F4

Greece

2 years

Caretaker

F5

Jordan

2 years

Cultural mediator

F6

Greece

2 years

Social pedagogue

F7

Greece

2 years

Neuroscientist

The members of the focus group had the opportunity to hear each others’ stories, express their personal opinions and add their perspectives to the topics under discussion (Sorrell and Redmond, 1995, p 1120). As a result, the raised points were considered ‘shared’ results (Cote-Arsenault and Morrison-Beedy, 2001, p 242), leading to ‘rapport building which produced rich and detailed data’ (Love et al, 2020, p 15). Moreover, the ‘double hermeneutic’ element of IPA, as discussed earlier in this study, was applied throughout the session, thus allowing for a ‘multiple hermeneutic approach’ (Tomkins and Eatough, 2010, p 255) to occur, which is considered an advancement to individual IPA interviews. Hence, by trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense both of their own experience and of each other’s, richer contextual data were obtained (for example, Wilkinson, 2004, p 179; Tomkins and Eatough, 2010, p 245). This process allowed the author to draw conclusions from the non-​verbal interaction that took place among focus group members and examine how opinions change in the course of the meeting as well as how the participants’ perspectives led to the introduction of new topics. Lastly, the discussion among participants made them more aware of their thoughts and feelings in ways that are less likely to occur in individual interviews. This confirms the opinion that was originally formed by Smith et al (2009, p 19), that the process of sense-​making is not experienced in isolation, but within a given context. Therefore, after providing participants with information regarding this project’s scope of study and research aims and after responding to questions, the author presented the ground rules for the discussion and kindly invited the focus group members to adhere to the rules throughout the interview session.25 Shortly after this presentation, the discussion commenced. 25

Participants were advised not to hold back and express their personal opinions freely by putting new ideas on the table and allowing them to develop in the course of the discussion. 72

Recruitment and Data Collection

Initially, participants were invited to anonymously introduce themselves and briefly describe their professional background and current position in the humanitarian sector. As the discussion progressed, and similar to the previous interview stage, focus group members were provided with quotes which were originally made by unaccompanied children and they were asked to comment on these quotes and share their insights based on their professional experience. Indeed, participants soon engaged in a productive dialogue. More specifically, they elaborated on the conditions within detention facilities for unaccompanied children in Greece, reflected on whether the right to be heard was applied correctly in favour of detained UAM at the time, and also shared their opinions regarding the reason why unaccompanied children were being subjected to detention upon arrival in the country. At the end of the meeting, the participants’ closing remarks included their thoughts concerning the role of humanitarian organisations in safeguarding the rights of unaccompanied children in the context of migration in Greece, as well as their suggestions on possible alternatives to UAM detention processes. The participants’ responses throughout all three interview stages will be further presented and elaborated upon in the following chapters.

Also, they were invited to engage in a productive dialogue, listen to each other’s stories and structure their opinions. Degrading reactions towards other focus group members were strictly forbidden. Instead, participants were asked to be polite and respectfully disagree with other members, should they choose to. Furthermore, they were advised to always ask for clarification in case a question was not clear enough and respond honestly to the raised discussion topics. Lastly, they were kindly invited to speak one at a time and avoid interrupting one another. 73

6

Emergent Discussion Themes Following the guidelines of Smith and Osborn (2003, p 67), the interpretative character of IPA was adapted to this study’s interviews and subsequent analysis. More specifically, during the transcription process the author interacted closely with the text while utilising his own resources (Brocki and Wearden, 2006, p 96). Hence, the emergent discussion themes were not the result of a simple categorisation of data. Instead, the interview texts were analysed in depth, followed by the author’s insights and ‘an academic perspective familiar with research, models and theories’ (Pycroft et al, 2015, p 427). This process involved noting similarities in the content of the participants’ statements and categorising them through the coding process of IPA, as presented earlier in this study. After organising the participants’ responses in groups, certain discussion themes were identified, which were then clustered into higher-​order and sub-​themes. Thus, instead of simply depicting how the participants replied to the asked questions, the author took a step further and focused on the sense of meaning that participants gave to their experiences, engaged with their statements and assessed their responses through the lens of his own experiences.1 As a result, the ‘double hermeneutic’2 process of IPA was applied and a deep understanding of the participants’ personal lived experiences was ultimately built.

1

2

According to Smith et al (1999, p 230), ‘there is no definitive or prescribed way in which the “discovery” of shared themes will be achieved. … What is important to keep in mind is that the aim of IPA is to develop an understanding of participants’ experiences, with the themes that are identified considered to come from your personal interaction with, and interpretation of, the interview data, regardless of the particular strategy you choose to employ’. The ‘double hermeneutic’ process of IPA is discussed in depth in Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 and is based on the premise that ‘participants are trying to make sense of their world, while the researcher is trying to make sense of the participants trying to make sense of their world’ (see Smith and Osborn, 2003, p 53; Smith et al, 2009, p 3). 74

Emergent Discussion Themes

Table 6.1: Superordinate and subordinate themes Superordinate Concerns themes on hygiene matters

Problematic detention setting

Absence of proper services

Incidents of abusive behaviour

Subordinate themes

Personal hygiene

Extended duration

Food/​water/​ financial support

Verbal maltreatment

Sanitary facilities

Ethnic/​gender/​ age diversity

Telephone/​ communication

Physical assault

Lack of privacy

Substandard processes

Interpretation/​ legal/​medical

Emotional harm

Throughout the held interviews, participants focused on the conditions in several detention centres, all located in the wider area of N. Greece, where unaccompanied children had been placed upon arrival in the country, waiting to be referred to suitable accommodation. The superordinate themes that emerged were structured around the participants’ responses as regards the inappropriate conditions that detained UAM were subjected to at the time. More specifically, focus was placed on hygiene matters, the overall problematic detention context, the total absence of proper services, as well as the abusive treatment that unaccompanied children endured in detention. Under each superordinate discussion theme, the information that was provided by participants allowed for the creation of subordinate themes according to the IPA guidelines, as shown in Table 6.1. At this point, the research analysis will be structured in separate sub-​ chapters, based on each superordinate discussion theme respectively. The participants’ responses will be depicted in chronological order and in the form of quotes,3 followed by the author’s personal input, which will be added to the analysis according to the ‘double hermeneutic’ process of IPA (see Smith et al, 2009, p 36; Eatough and Smith, 2017, p 205). In detail, the participants’ responses from the first interview stage will be presented first, followed by the practitioners’ input during the second interview stage. Lastly, the focus group members’ perspectives will conclude. Under each sub-​chapter, the topics that emerged in the course of the discussion will be elaborated upon according to Table 6.1. Due to confidentiality reasons, the original names of participants will not be revealed. Neither will the names or specific locations of detention centres or humanitarian organisations, or any other kind of sensitive information

3

For a more concise result, a selection of the participants’ most pertinent responses will be presented both in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. 75

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

about the participants’ background. For this reason, the letter R will indicate the author’s formed question which will appear in italic lettering, followed by the participants’ responses.4

Concerns on hygiene matters At the beginning of the first interview stage, unaccompanied children were asked to describe their thoughts and illustrate their primary impressions from the moment they entered detention for the first time. Admittedly, all participants felt the need to provide a detailed description of the detention centres where they were placed upon arrival in the country before being referred to safe zones. As soon as they felt comfortable enough to share their experiences,5 the main issue that they focused upon was the lack of hygiene. Their responses varied, nevertheless almost every minor referred to the highly unsuitable conditions and further mentioned that the first thing they noticed was that the detention room appeared as if it had never been properly cleaned. Apparently, the inexistence of appropriate accommodation structures, coupled with the urgent need to host unaccompanied children upon arrival in the country, led to a clearly inappropriate context, where the maximum number of individuals that were supposed to be placed in each room was in most cases surpassed (Fili and Xythali, 2017, p 4). As regards the availability of restrooms,6 according to minors, a toilet was usually located in the corner of the room, right next to their mattresses, and it lacked separating walls, thus depriving them of privacy. Furthermore, unaccompanied children mentioned the horrible smell that would fill the room and the unhygienic environment overall, especially due to the fact that every detained UAM was using the same facilities. In the course of the sessions, the author had the opportunity to witness the way in which unaccompanied children described these conditions. In detail, every minor elaborated extensively on how difficult it was to survive in an environment that was practically impossible to live in. In fact, according to the interpreters who were assisting during the interviews, participants were

4

5

6

According to the information that is provided in Chapter 5 under Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 respectively, the responses of unaccompanied children (first interview stage) will appear with the letter M; if a response was provided by a participant during the second interview stage (individual practitioners) it will appear with the letter P, and the responses during the third interview stage (professionals in a focus group setting) will appear with the letter F. Namely, after discussing their concerns and managing to overcome their emotional distress. The process that the author followed so that unaccompanied children would manage to successfully overcome their concerns, which included pausing the interview and holding informal sessions with them, is presented in detail in Chapter 5. The toilet was most commonly referred to among participants as ‘washroom’. 76

Emergent Discussion Themes

using particularly strong language in order to illustrate how insulting and degrading it was for them to be placed in such a horrible setting. R: M1:

M7: M6: M4:

[W]hat about a toilet or a bathroom? ... personal hygiene? [T]‌he situation was very very bad, it was not clean, especially the toilets … sometimes when I really needed to go to the toilet, I did not want to go … I was trying as much as I can to prevent going to the toilet … I was going only when it’s very very big need. The toilet was inside the room and it was wide open to the place itself and it was not at all clean and the smell was spread all over the place. Yes, in the same room and it was very dirty. … No one care. We do. … Here in the corner, there is toilet. … Thirty persons in one washroom. [G]‌eneral washroom for everyone [meaning that there was only one toilet in the detention room]. Doors are broken, everything was broken.

In most cases, a shower was not available, whereas only two unaccompanied children mentioned that their detention room was indeed equipped with one. However, it was placed right next to the toilet, without a door and with only one wall separating it from the rest of the room. Additionally, according to the minors’ statements, there were no washing machines or any other kind of household appliances available. As a result, it was quite common for unaccompanied children to wear the same clothes throughout the time they spent in detention, which they had to leave behind upon departure. It was also mentioned that the only way to wash their clothes would be by using either a sink or a shower and only if the detention room was equipped with such facilities. R: M9: M6:

M7:

[H]ow did you clean your clothes? Yes, we wash with soap or shampoo. … Where we took a shower. Same place. With the toilet. … This is a toilet this is a shower [participant used his hands to describe the structure of the room]. One place. In one small room. … No washing machine. There was not any kind of assist from their side and there is no way that you can wash your clothes [meaning the police did not provide the equipment or the facilities so that detained UAM would be able to wash their clothes]. 77

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

This situation affected every unaccompanied child deeply. In fact, they complained that during detention they felt unprotected and highly offended due to the profound lack of hygiene. In some cases, they felt ashamed of having to admit that they were unable to clean themselves or their clothes properly. Others raised their tone in frustration during the interview, showing the clothes they had on at the time and complaining that to wear clean clothes should not be considered an achievement. This statement was widely supported among minors. After all, despite the reasons that forced them to leave their countries of origin and seek refuge abroad, they were all particularly proud of their cultural and ethnic background and they could not overcome the fact that they were being subjected to such inappropriate conditions, especially when all they needed was protection and assistance upon arrival in a foreign country. Furthermore, it was mentioned that during detention unaccompanied children were afflicted by allergies and severe skin infections, mainly caused by scabies and lice. In fact, during the first interview stage, several minors took off their t-​shirts in order to show the marks on their skin which were caused by bugs that nested inside the mattresses they slept on in detention. Moreover, the majority of unaccompanied children mentioned that they experienced acute stomach infections because they were often obliged to drink water out of the toilet’s water tank, as they were not provided with bottled mineral water, unless they could purchase it.7 M10: M7: M8: M6:

The room … it’s like medium size and it’s very dirty, it’s disgusting. So even you cannot walk inside. … And we also drink water from washroom. [Y]‌ou’ll find some insects coming out from that and when I take a look at the mattress … it’s written on it 2009. And the smell is terribly bad. [I]‌t was so dirty … they did not give to us any tools for cleaning … I was sleeping and you could see an insect was walking on some people. [S]‌cabies, lice, everything was mixed in blanket and mattress … we shaved our head also and we throw our clothes there.

Special focus was also placed on the fact that the police rarely provided unaccompanied children with personal hygiene products during detention. Instead, only NGOs would cover the minors’ needs on the matter. According to one particular statement, if detained UAM ever complained to the administration of the detention centre and requested to be provided with 7

Important issues regarding the ability of detained UAM to buy items, including food and water, will be discussed later in this chapter under ‘Absence of proper services’. 78

Emergent Discussion Themes

such items, their requests would be treated with offensive and degrading comments by police officers. This confirmed the highly inappropriate and deeply abusive environment that unaccompanied children were being subjected to at the time, as will be further presented under ‘Incidents of abusive behaviour’. M9: M6:

M10:

We have to buy our soap, we have to buy our shampoo. When there is just one shower and small washroom we take shower every day even they did not give us shampoo. … If we ask again then again bad word [meaning that detained UAM would be the recipients of verbal abuse and derogatory treatment on behalf of police officers]. … When we ask for shampoo to take a shower, they told us why you are asking for shampoo you will do masturbation in the washroom? That’s what they say. Verbal every day [meaning that detained UAM would be subjected to verbal abuse on a daily basis]. So, you are not supposed to keep your bag inside the room with you and whenever you asking to give you shampoo or any material from your bag of course the answer would be verbal abuse [meaning that every time that minors would ask the police officers either to provide them with shampoo or to give them anything from their personal belongings, which were kept in a different room, the officers would respond offensively and in a highly inappropriate and abusive manner].

As the first interview stage progressed, unaccompanied children referred to the lack of interest on behalf of police officers towards them. In fact, during detention, minors would repeatedly complain about the conditions of hygiene and would ask for cleaning equipment to be provided to them, so that they would be able to clean their room. In most cases, such equipment was not available, with the exception of a normal broom, which would not suffice. On the contrary, the corridor of the police department as well as the administration offices were being cleaned and sanitised on a daily basis. Nevertheless, no actions were being taken on behalf of police officers, so that the same would apply for the detention rooms. Therefore, as no cleaning products were being provided, detained UAM were often obliged to use water from the toilet as well as pieces of fabric, usually taken from their own clothes, to which they added toothpaste in order to clean the floor of their room.8 8

There was also an allegation about a certain detention centre where police officers would force unaccompanied children to clean their room, however this statement was not confirmed. 79

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

M5: M4: M6: M10:

M9:

We all was asking about the material to clean everything, the tools and everything but most of the time they [meaning the police] don’t respond. They gave us skoupa [Greek word for ‘broom’] to clean the place. [W]‌e cleaned our room because we wanted clean space but they [meaning the police] did not clean. They [meaning the police] did not provide any chemicals to clean the room and the minors inside the room who stayed together, every two days they bring an empty bottle of water and they put toothpaste inside and they fill it with water and they clean the floor and each one he can donate his cover to dry the floor after they clean it … by their hands but they used like their towels, their old clothes and clothes that somebody left … or cover or whatever they found. No equipment. We have a piece of cloth from our shirt from our pants old we cleaned with this and we took some stuff [meaning water] with the bottles from inside the washroom [meaning from inside the toilet] to clean our floor.

Given the temporary character of detention, as stipulated in the law and discussed earlier in this study, one would expect that the national authorities in Greece would make sure that detained UAM would be subjected to proper conditions at the least. However, all that was available were mattresses and blankets that had never been properly laundered, which resulted in a clearly unhygienic environment overall. Moreover, minors referred to the awfully overcrowded rooms. According to the majority of their statements, unaccompanied children were not provided with individual mattresses or blankets in detention. As a result, in most cases they were either obliged to sleep on the floor, or share the same items with other minors, thus raising additional privacy and hygiene issues. R: M7: M2: M10:

[H]ow many mattresses were in the room? It was less than the number of people. … Some people were sleeping on the ground and some people in some … were sleeping two in one mattress. I had a small mattress in the corner and I was sleeping on it. [T]‌hey have mattresses but it’s very dirty … it looks like they use it for long time and from the first time they used it they never changed it or never cleaned it. … Not everyone has mattress. … If you don’t have any blankets or cover so you’ll have to share the bed with somebody else. 80

Emergent Discussion Themes

M6: R: M11: M9:

M7:

For example, there is mattress for 15 people but 30 people was in sleeping ... 2–​3 person was sleeping on one mattress. [W]as there someone responsible to clean the blankets or the mattresses? Sometimes they [meaning the police] provide clean blankets and mattresses and another time they don’t provide the clean ones. No. They don’t clean. They don’t wash. New came [meaning that new minors arrived]. They just gave them the same [meaning that the police provided newcomers with used mattresses and blankets]. I was taking off my shirt and I was sleeping on my shirt because also there was not any pillows.

The detention rooms were particularly small and could only host a limited number of unaccompanied children. However, nearly every minor stated that the number of individuals that they shared the room with was much higher. Judging from the way the minors described the conditions they endured, it was obvious that they felt deprived of their dignity during detention. In fact, when the issue of overpopulated rooms was brought up in the discussion, unaccompanied children would feel particularly embarrassed when they were asked to elaborate on how crowded detention was. Interestingly, according to their statements, the number of detained UAM would decrease only when NGOs would make an appearance and remove them from detention in order to admit them to child-​protection programmes that operated under their administration. R: How many people were there in the same room? M3: Twenty. M10: When the organisations come and they take some minors to safe zones, the number of the minors in the room could be 17 to 18, but when they don’t come and they leave it to be a big number … 25 to 26. M4: [T]‌hey put 17 person in the same cell with nine mattress and we can’t sleep because of hot because of many people in that small room. During the second interview stage, practitioners were asked to share their perspectives and elaborate in detail with respect to the existing conditions within detention centres for unaccompanied children, strictly based on their professional experience and knowledge on the matter. Their responses varied, but in general their statements were coherent and in harmony with 81

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

the information that had already been provided by minors during the previous stage. As regards the overall context of detention, practitioners mentioned that the overpopulated facilities led to an utterly unhygienic and demeaning setting. This demonstrates that national authorities were unable to protect the rights of detained UAM and provide them with quality services. In addition, it was also mentioned that minors were allowed to exit the detention room only if the toilet that was available in said room was occupied and under special circumstances, in which case they would be allowed brief access to the police department’s restroom area. Furthermore, it was confirmed that minors were often incapable of maintaining a clean room. In fact, practitioners supported that the latter would occur mainly because of the particularly high number of unaccompanied children being accommodated together, which certainly resulted in further hygiene issues. P4: P3:

P6:

P1:

[T]‌here was not sufficient space actually for the room … for the cell to be clean, because in a cell that its capacity would be around 20 people, it had 40. [S]‌ome of them they don’t have space to sleep … they are sitting but they don’t have space to be in a fully position in order to sleep [meaning that there was not enough room for unaccompanied children to be able to lie down]. I have seen … 12 people gathered in one cell that fits five … I have seen toilets being blocked and no one could use them … whenever a child needed to go to the toilet, they were being taken out of the cell and they were using the facilities for the police officers, which was quite a good thing because they [meaning the police officers] were letting them [meaning the detained UAM] out of the cell … even for ten minutes. [T]‌hey can … put like more than 20 people in one place and that place could barely just hold ten persons … and when they ask them why they are doing this … simply no one answers them and they [meaning the police officers] simply say that you have to deal with it.

Most professionals were not allowed to physically enter the room where unaccompanied children were being detained. Instead, they were provided with a dedicated area, where they would conduct meetings with the minors in the context of their respective professions. According to their statements, they were not allowed to enter the detention facilities so that they would not witness the horrible conditions and the inappropriate environment that detained UAM were being subjected to. 82

Emergent Discussion Themes

So, the information that the practitioners shared during the interviews concerning the conditions of detention originally derived from the individual meetings that they had with unaccompanied children. Nonetheless, professionals who were indeed able to physically enter said facilities were more than willing to describe their impressions in vivid detail. The information that was provided by practitioners who had physically entered the detention rooms was congruent with the information that was provided by participants who had been informed about these conditions directly from unaccompanied children after holding individual sessions with them. Hence, the perceived credibility of their testimonies was never questioned. In fact, their statements were supported by all practitioners and were also in agreement with the other interview stages’ research findings. P2:

P6:

P11:

P9:

P6:

[T]‌h e conditions are for sure not appropriate for the minors. The detention centres … they were not made … to receive minors. … There are spaces with poor hygiene … overcrowded. [T]‌hey don’t have the funds, not even for heating … not for cleaning materials … and believing that the minors will stay with them [meaning in detention] only for a couple of days, they [meaning the police officers] don’t provide them [meaning the detained UAM] with anything. The conditions in detention centres are throughout Greece that bad. I don’t think that we have a legal system … which respects the rights of decent living for those who are detained … it is awful … we talk about very small cells with no access to natural light. They have only one small window on the top, which is not enough for the sun to go inside. [T]‌hey [meaning the police officers] put him inside the prison … worse situation there … very dirty … a lot of insects … a lot of sick [meaning that detained UAM often experienced health issues] … one toilet for all … without door … and they leave them to drink water from inside the toilet [meaning that police officers would not even offer bottled water to detained UAM, therefore minors were obliged to drink water from the toilet], they did not give even … medicine or food … they did not help them at all. [I]‌t’s just a cell, just a room, with bars, just a room with one toilet and mattresses on the floor. Imagine this situation with 12 people inside and no cleaning for more than a month … due to the bad hygiene condition, most of them had scabies and other transmittable diseases. 83

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

The author proceeded by providing practitioners with quotes originally made by unaccompanied children during the first interview stage regarding the conditions they encountered in detention. Consequently, professionals were asked to comment on whether the presented quotes fitted with their own understanding. All practitioners supported that the information that was provided by minors was indeed accurate and truthfully depicted the conditions that detained UAM were experiencing at the time. In addition, it was confirmed that the majority of unaccompanied children indeed suffered from severe skin infections, mainly due to the unhygienic environment of the detention room and the poor quality of the provided equipment, which mainly consisted of mattresses and blankets. According to practitioners, detained UAM were aware of the fact that organisations of the humanitarian sector would often assist so that they would be removed from detention and eventually be placed in appropriate accommodation structures. In fact, several participants mentioned that they had visited UAM detention facilities in the course of their respective professions multiple times in the recent past for this exact reason. Hence, the following statements are based on their experiences regarding the detention conditions that unaccompanied children endured at the time. P4:

P11:

P6:

One day I had to go myself in one of the detention centres to get one boy … they did not let me in the cells … they took me privately to a … police officer’s private office … the only thing I could see was a lot of cells in a row and many hands outside the cells … I could not see what was happening inside but I could see this freaky image of hands outside of the cells asking for help. Because what was happening is that when they [meaning the detained UAM] found out that one person from an NGO came to get one child, all the hands were out asking for them to go as well, even if they were not minors. [S]‌ince 2016 I’ve been visiting detention centres where unaccompanied minors are held … the police headquarters have given us the permission to enter the detention centres … in order to provide psychosocial support … legal support … we cannot access … the cells. [N]‌early 100 children who were staying there for more than four months and five months … 100 children were expecting us at the entrance of their fenced area … the director of the detention centre told them that we come to pick them up and they were shouting the name of the NGO. … You could see the distress in their eyes … when am I going to get out from here? And when am I going to see Greece? What will happen with my future? Am I going to stay here forever? 84

Emergent Discussion Themes

These are … questions that you cannot answer … imagine we had only four spaces [meaning that the child-​protection programme could only host four minors] and in front of us we had 100 children. At the beginning of the third interview stage and after providing participants with specific discussion guidelines, as described in the previous chapter, focus group members were invited to engage in a discussion, share their insights and comment on specific matters concerning the first superordinate discussion theme. Initially, they all agreed that detention centres are highly inappropriate places for unaccompanied children, even as a form of temporary accommodation. In support of this statement, the issue of overcrowded detention rooms and the complete lack of hygiene were referred to the most as the session progressed. In their majority, the members of the focus group meeting had extensive professional experience, having worked both in safe zones9 as well as in child-protection programmes in general. Thus, they were able to contribute to the discussion by sharing their knowledge and perspectives regarding the health issues that detained UAM would often experience, especially due to the unsanitary conditions they were being subjected to. F2:

F7:

F4:

9

[O]‌bviously the space provided for the number of people held in a cell it’s too small. I think it’s like … in a place for ten people there might be 16 or 17 … they are too many. Obviously, they have no hygiene at all. A lot of transmitted diseases are spread within the detention centres. … It’s a joke to think that there is any other kind of support like psychological support … because they don’t even have the basics … regarding physical health. I have heard some very very unpleasant stories regarding the stay in the detention centres. … The facilities are not appropriate for children. Of course, there is no space … they [meaning the detained UAM] say that they [meaning the police officers] use harmful and unaccepted practices towards children. [I]‌t’s true that there is a large number of children in small cells. … I have seen unaccompanied minors getting out of the detention centres … with many medical needs … and skin infections in general.

As presented in Chapter 3, at the time this research took place, ‘safe zones’ were designated supervised spaces within accommodation sites (usually refugee camps), that provided unaccompanied children with protection, care and services on a 24-​hour basis, until they would be referred to long-​term accommodation. 85

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Problematic detention setting During the first interview stage, unaccompanied children stated that from the moment they were apprehended for entering the country in an irregular manner, their vulnerable status and age had been considerably disregarded. In their majority, they described that upon arrival in the country, they were transferred directly either to a police department or a dedicated facility and sometimes in several different locations, even where they were subjected to detention processes of a clearly prolonged character (Troller, 2008, p 53). More specifically, seven minors stated that they were held in detention for more than one month, and nearly every unaccompanied child supported that there were cases of minors who had spent several months in detention. R: M3: M8: M9: M11: M10:

[How] much time did you spend in the detention centre? One and half month. It could be 31 days, 34 days but it was more than [one] month. I spent one month and seven days. Sixty days. One month … I asked the people [meaning other detained UAM] that they stayed there, how long they are there and the people said that some … stayed like two months, four months, six months.

In the second and third interview stage, practitioners supported that prolonged detention was a rather common phenomenon. According to their statements, this was nothing more than the combined result of large migration flows arriving in Greece between the years 2016 and 2020, coupled with the inexistence of ample short-​term hosting units and the country’s inability to place unaccompanied children in a protective setting, as the law originally intended.10 This confirmed that national authorities in Greece were clearly not prepared to accept such large numbers of vulnerable migrant populations at the time this research took place. Adding to this topic, focus group members were also concerned about the duration of detention. In fact, they argued that unaccompanied children will inevitably be subjected to prolonged detention, as long as proper accommodation is not immediately made available for the high number of asylum-​seeking individuals arriving in the country.

10

The issue of irregular entry into the country and the measures that would apply in the case of unaccompanied children, including custody of a protective character and detention processes, are discussed in detail in Chapter 3. 86

Emergent Discussion Themes

P1:

F2:

F1:

F4: F6: P11:

[I]‌t was a very longer period than expected … it’s not just one day or two days or ten days … it could stay three to four months just for one purpose to find a place to host them [meaning that unaccompanied children would remain in detention for a significant amount of time, pending referral to proper accommodation]. [T]‌he Greek law is unprepared for what has been happening for the past three years … given the availability of shelters by the Greek government, there is no way they can reach that amount of spaces that are needed. [T]‌he majority … are not staying for only 25 [participant is referring to the applicable law in Greece and the fact that UAM detention cannot exceed a period of 25 days, during which the minors must be identified and have their nationality verified before they are assigned to specialised organisations or guardians, as discussed earlier in this study]. Unfortunately, because there are many unaccompanied minors that have entered the country the past one year, there are many children that are identified in the streets. … They [meaning the police] are moving … them [meaning the unaccompanied children] under protective custody and because of lack of the appropriate number of shelters … [I]t’s true that there are big number of children in small cells and also due to lack of shelters, the period of staying in the detention centre lasts longer than 25 days, that’s for sure. ... [T]he number of shelters are not enough. [U]‌ntil the summer of 2017, there were not enough safe zones … there were not enough hotels … so the minors stayed for a long time … maybe 60 days or even more in detention. Since that time … many safe zones and hotels opened in the area … of N. Greece. … But it also depends on the migration flows … during the summer, when the migration flows are rising, the minors stay longer time in detention … in order to be placed in a safe zone. … You have to pass through the detention and then to be positioned. So, this is actually … breach of right of liberty … and a breach of right for decent living conditions.

Concerning the overall context of detention, four unaccompanied children mentioned that they shared the same room with adults, albeit only for a brief period of time. This phenomenon has also been discussed by scholars (for example, Troller, 2008, p 61; Fili and Xythali, 2017, p 4), stating that detained UAM face additional risks when they are placed alongside adults, which often includes being oppressed or subjected to degrading treatment. However, minors did not refer to such incidents. 87

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

After requesting further information on the matter, it was clarified that during detention unaccompanied children were often placed alongside adults, who had most commonly been arrested for committing a criminal act punishable by the Greek Penal Code and certainly not for entering the country in an irregular manner, as presented throughout the course of this study. Also, minors complained that their ethnic diversity was overlooked in detention, as they were rarely placed alongside other minors of the same nationality. As a result, they were in most cases unable to communicate with each other, which created additional tension. Fortunately, they did not refer to incidents that would involve them being the recipients of racist behaviour by other detainees based on criteria of origin or ethnicity. R: M9: M4: M1:

[W]‌ere there any adults in the same room or just minors? No. Mixed. Around 8 or 9 adults was with us in our cell … it happened in the whole period that I spent. Yes, together in one cell … was mixed people and maybe they stay two days or one day and then transfer them to another place. They weren’t all minors and one of them … had an accusation of raping a girl.

Additionally, unaccompanied children referred to the substandard reception processes that they experienced upon arrival in the country. In their majority, they mentioned that they were not asked to provide official identification documents, either at the point of entry or throughout the time they spent in detention. Nevertheless, they stated that they were always being honest and truthful, especially when they were asked to divulge personal information to the authorities and more specifically to declare their age. However, according to participants, it was quite common for adult asylum seekers to lie about their date of birth, as most of them aimed to be registered as minors in order to receive support and be placed in child-​ friendly accommodation units. Such incidents, along with the fact that age assessment procedures11 were not being conducted properly at the time, quite often resulted in adults being falsely registered as minors and eventually 11

Age determination processes were originally introduced in the Greek legal framework under JMD 1982 of 2016, which was recently replaced by JMD 9889 of 2020. From a procedural point of view, such examinations are conducted in three successive stages. Initially, the individual is subjected to a clinical examination. If it is inconclusive, the individual will then be subjected to a psychological and social evaluation. Finally, if the latter is also unsuccessful in determining the individual’s age, a medical examination of skeletal age (X-ray of left wrist and hand, followed by a dental assessment and a panoramic dental X-ray) will conclude the procedure. During these stages, procedural guarantees are provided so that the individual under assessment would be properly represented regardless of the followed process, the primary consideration always being the protection of the ‘best interests of the child’ 88

Emergent Discussion Themes

placed alongside unaccompanied children in detention facilities,12 which clearly raised safety issues. Moreover, the improperly executed reception and identification procedures, as described earlier in this study, also led to unaccompanied children often withdrawing their original statement as regards their date of birth, aiming to be eventually registered as adults. This would occur as minors were hoping to be removed from detention and they were under the false impression that they would achieve that by changing their registration details. Sadly, these incidents demonstrate the complete absence of available legal support in favour of detained UAM, as they were apparently unaware of the legal consequences of their actions.13 R: M2:

Were there any adults above the age of 18 inside that detention centre? [T]‌he minors were in one room and the adults in the other room … there were minors in the room that … weren’t minors and they were registered as minors. M3: People cry, it’s very very hard to spend 10 days in detention. Sometimes people, minors … they are 16 years old but they talk to the police they start change their age to 20 or 22 to go out … because they are scared to stay in. R: Did the police ask for any documents proving this age? M2: No. During the second and third interview stage, it was confirmed that detained UAM were often placed alongside adults due to shortage of available rooms. It was also supported that a segregation of gender would occur at all times. Nevertheless, despite the fact that individuals of different gender were never placed together in detention, according to practitioners detained UAM would often share the same room with adults who had been falsely registered as minors, with the exception of one specific detention centre where a segregation of individuals applied based on age criteria.

12

13

principle. However, with respect to age assessment techniques based on radiation processes in specific, De Sanctis et al (2016) note that these approaches are wildly criticised, as they are most commonly considered to be invasive, arbitrary and based on reference materials which are outdated, hence they may harm the individual whose age is under assessment. For this reason, a ‘margin of error’ is always present in the examination, thus confirming the inaccuracy of such methods, as well as their insufficiency, unless a ‘balance of probability’ is eventually taken into consideration when it comes to similar processes. According to Art. 75(3)(e) of Act 4636 of 2019, ‘until the completion of the age determination procedure, the person who claims to be a minor shall be treated as such’. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. This issue will be further discussed in this chapter under ‘Absence of proper services’. 89

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Lastly, it was pointed out by practitioners that unaccompanied children would often complain about the overcrowded rooms and the inappropriate conditions that they were experiencing, albeit in vain. This statement should not be dealt with light-​heartedly, as it clearly portrays the problematic context of detention overall. In fact, one might assume that the inexistence of proper communication between detained UAM and the police may have been caused due to the country’s inability to cover the minors’ needs, especially given the high number of unaccompanied children being subjected to detention processes at the time. However, according to practitioners, this condition is the outcome of much deeper issues, including but not restricted to the lack of education and specialised police training.14 P4:

F3:

P2:

[B]‌oth minors and adults were put in the same cells because the minors were less than the adults and the cells were not enough so they [meaning the police] had to mix them, but that was of course not protective custody and it was very unsafe for the minors. I have seen actually a lot of minors to be recognised as adults … something that means all of these unaccompanied minors are going to live with the common population as adults. Without any protection from nobody. That means that they will face all the risks that someone can face inside the detention centre. [M]‌inors in age of 14 can be kept with minors of 18 years old or maybe with persons who declare that they are 18 but sometimes they are over 25. That means in an unofficial way that children are kept with adults.

Absence of proper services Among the superordinate discussion themes that emerged, the absence of services in favour of detained UAM was discussed the most by participants throughout all three interview stages. According to the literature, unaccompanied children require appropriate protection so that their needs would be adequately covered as soon as they enter the country in an irregular manner (for example, Derluyn and Broekaert, 2008, p 327; Thommessen et al, 2015, p 375). For this reason, national authorities are expected to provide minors with services of high quality, which would assist them in overcoming the difficulties of being on the move, until the moment they are eventually referred to more suitable and long-​term accommodation 14

The practitioners’ opinions regarding the fact that police officers in Greece are unable to understand and safeguard the rights of detained UAM in a proper manner due to the lack of education and specialised training, will be presented and elaborated upon in Chapter 7. 90

Emergent Discussion Themes

(Vervliet et al, 2015, p 479). However, the participants’ responses confirmed that at the time this study was conducted, unaccompanied children had never received sufficient care and support during detention. As the interviews progressed, focus was placed on the meals that were offered to minors. More specifically, food was provided free of charge by catering services, albeit only at RIS operation units.15 On the contrary, when it comes to detention facilities throughout N. Greece, neither food nor bottled mineral water was available for free. Instead, detained UAM would be provided with financial support in the form of pocket money on a daily basis,16 which nevertheless was never enough for them to make it through the day. Thus, if minors asked for additional food but were not able to cover its cost, they would have to wait until the next day’s allowance. In some cases, it was also mentioned that unaccompanied children would often trust police officers with their money so that they would bring them food from local restaurants, which sadly they rarely did. Apparently, detained UAM were not provided with alternatives, rather with only one food provider who would sell sandwiches and meat-​based meals of particularly poor quality. Food was being offered twice a day, once in the morning and then later in the evening. In most cases, a cart would be brought into the detention centre and minors would be expected to purchase items directly from the merchant. In addition, unaccompanied children complained that all items were overpriced, thus creating suspicions of unaccountable profiteering on behalf of the merchant.17 In fact, if they were short on cash, they mentioned that their best option would be either to share the cost of the meal or share the actual meal with other minors, as this certainly would be the most affordable way for them to acquire adequate portions of food. Furthermore, water was also not free. To this end, detained UAM were expected to use their daily allowance in order to purchase the items that they would need, which included bottled mineral water. However, if they did not have the money to do so, they would often resolve to drinking water from the toilet’s tank, as mentioned earlier. This context demonstrates the poor treatment that unaccompanied children were receiving in detention as well as the complete unwillingness 15

16

17

The context of the Reception and Identification Service as well as the applicable legal framework on reception and identification procedures is presented in detail in Chapter 3. Detained UAM were in most cases provided with a daily allowance. The total amount varied from €5,50 to €5,90, which they were expected to use in order to purchase food, water and various items of preference, including personal hygiene products. During the first interview stage, minors complained that meals were usually sold as a whole, which included a main dish, salad and sometimes bread, which resulted in a higher price. Therefore, detained UAM were in most cases indirectly forced to spend almost their entire daily allowance on just one meal. 91

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

of police officers to cover the minors’ needs in a respectable manner. As a result, it was quite common for detained UAM to go on hunger strike due to the inappropriate conditions that they were experiencing (Papadopoulos and Pycroft, 2019, p 584). However, even then, the inability of police officers to handle such incidents was evident. M5: M10:

R: M6:

M7: M8:

M7: M6:

€5.60 and then you do everything yourself. [E]‌very day in the morning the … police officer he used to come with a list with their names and he has a bag, he has money inside, he used to call their names, each one and gave them €5.80 and take his signature. Were the €5.80 enough for the whole day? [O]‌ne person cannot survive with this money. If they are many, they are buying food together then it’s enough … I asked please I need food I did not eat from the morning [meaning since morning] they [meaning the police officers] said no just go to sleep, morning [meaning that minors would have to wait until the next day’s allowance). [N]o it wasn’t sufficient. … They’d have to wait for the next day. For the other allowance ... I was so hungry and I wanted food and I wanted water, nothing. It was nothing. It was … Ramadan so we did not have to spend so much money because we did not eat so much food. If it was a normal day … no it wouldn’t be enough ... You buy it from the €5.80 [meaning that detained UAM would use their pocket money to purchase bottled mineral water] because the water there [meaning at the detention centre] you cannot drink it. [H]‌e used to buy one plate of €3.00 and he used to divide it with his friend together, so this is sufficient for them. The juice from outside from the market it’s 50 cent and inside they were us giving us €2.50.

To be able to communicate with family members and loved ones is a strong asset for migrant children, especially if one takes into consideration their special status and vulnerability (for example, Goodman, 2004, p 1181; Derluyn and Broekaert, 2008, p 321; Papadopoulos, 2020, p 183), as discussed extensively in previous chapters. Therefore, in the first interview stage, unaccompanied children mentioned that during detention they repeatedly asked police officers to assist them in order to contact their families. However, the only option that they were given was to purchase a telephone card and use a public phone, which was located within the premises of the detention centre. Sadly, besides the daily allowance, as mentioned earlier, 92

Emergent Discussion Themes

additional financial support was not provided to minors. As a result, they were often facing the dilemma of either purchasing food or said card. Fortunately, NGOs would often give out telephone cards to detained UAM for free during their visits, albeit rarely and in limited numbers. M4: M7:

M6: M9: M8:

[I]‌f we want to buy a calling card for €4.00, he had to save money from €5.87. So … not eat food so … then buy card. Otherwise, no card. [T]‌here was phone outside from 2pm till 6pm … they allowed to go and contact … whoever we want. But you have to buy the card for €4.00. So, €1.80 exactly were left so you’d have to eat with it for the whole day. Every day we got €5.87 … we have to collect money to get a card otherwise there is no way to communicate. [I]‌f we want to buy a card we don’t have to buy food … we will just stay hungry. [T]‌he only solution was to buy one card and the card cost €4.00. What will I do? Eat or buy card? The [a specific NGO was mentioned, the name of which is not revealed due to confidentiality reasons] they have done us a big favour, two days after Ramadan they came and they gave us ten cards, vouchers for €10.00 each.

As the first interview stage progressed, unaccompanied children were asked to clarify whether they felt that they had been provided with appropriate protection and assistance during detention. Their responses were similar and it was made clear that they did not feel safe, mainly due to the inappropriate and unfriendly conditions they endured. According to their statements, they primarily needed to feel protected and cared for when they arrived in the country. This included not only the element of physical safety, but also the provision of support and services. More specifically, the presence of a legal advisor was required at all times so that minors would be properly informed about their legal status, as well as about their rights and responsibilities. However, the interviews revealed that unaccompanied children were never provided with legal assistance during detention.18 In most cases they were not even provided with an explanation concerning the reasons for their arrest.

18

One unaccompanied child in specific mentioned that the only information he had received from the police was that he would shortly be transferred to a refugee camp and that the transfer would occur within a couple of days. Sadly, the transfer took place after one month, during which he had not received any updates whatsoever. 93

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Actually, minors stressed that they were under the impression they were being detained for committing a criminal act, which was entirely untrue, as presented in detail earlier in this study. This confirms that ‘[c]‌hildren in immigration detention will often be traumatised and have difficulty understanding why they are being punished despite having committed no crime’ (UN Human Rights Council, 2012,19 p 10). As a result, the only available source of information for unaccompanied children regarding their legal status would be the NGOs that would visit them in detention. However, these rare visits did not make up for the utter lack of services that detained UAM were experiencing at the time. In fact, it was supported that minors would receive proper legal aid only after they would be referred to hosting units, most commonly operating under NGO administration. It was also demonstrated that the fact that adults were placed alongside minors added to the feeling of unsafety which was already overwhelming for unaccompanied children during detention. For example, one minor in specific mentioned that he felt regret for seeking protection at the police station upon arrival in the country,20 especially after having experienced the total absence of services, coupled with the inappropriate behaviour of police officers, which will be dicussed in depth as this chapter progresses. Furthermore, detained UAM could not communicate with the authorities as there were no interpretation services available in detention, hence minors were in most cases unable to submit requests or even comprehend what they were being told by police officers.21 M4: M5: M6:

19

20

21

[T]‌hey [meaning the police] did not provide facilities or information at all. [H]‌ow would you feel secure in prison? That does not accept any mind or any logic. No assistance, no co-​operation, nothing. … No facilities they provided. Nothing. God don’t send anyone to the police station.

UN General Assembly (2012), Human Rights Council, Twentieth session: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, 2 April 2012, A/​HRC/​20/​24. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​502e0b​b62.html Another minor claimed that police officers provided him with documentation that was only written in Greek and asked him to sign without explaining the overall context and without providing an official translation or asking an interpreter to assist. To this day, the content of these documents remains unknown. In some cases, a detainee, either minor or adult, with basic knowledge of Greek or English would assist so that detained UAM would be able to communicate with police officers. Also, when NGOs would visit unaccompanied children in detention, they would provide interpretation services, albeit only during their visits and only for specific reasons. 94

Emergent Discussion Themes

M7: R: M3: M1:

R: M3: M4:

[T]‌here was not any kind of support, treatment … from the police side and now I feel regret that I handed myself to the police. [D]‌id anyone explain to you why you were arrested? Nothing they catch us they put us in a van and they brought us in police station. No there was not any kind of explanation … they just put us inside and they put the chain in our hand and then they put us in the detention. Once they put us in the bus when we were in the island, we did not know where we were going. … We thought they were taking us back to Turkey. [D]id anyone inform you about your rights or why you were there? No, nothing. No. Nothing about and we even don’t know about asylum that [meaning that unaccompanied children were completely unaware of asylum proceedings].

When the first interview stage took place, unaccompanied children had already been placed in safe zones and provided with medical care, having undergone all necessary examinations with the help of the NGOs that operated said accommodation units. However, it was mentioned that during detention various incidents that required urgent medical treatment were not dealt with properly, as in most cases police officers lacked the resources, training or knowledge that would allow them to act accordingly. In fact, if detained UAM showed any sign of illness, one would expect that they would be transferred to a medical centre in order to receive proper treatment. However, in practice, police officers would simply administer painkillers, regardless of the condition and the severity of symptoms. For example, one specific incident was mentioned where an unaccompanied child was having an asthma attack and the police officers did not transfer him to a hospital or at least arrange for an appointment with a doctor. Additionally, minors complained that they often suffered from stomach infections, due to the dramatically low quality of food that was provided to them in detention. For this reason, unaccompanied children would repeatedly ask police officers to improve the quality of meals. However, such requests were met with inappropriate responses. M10:

I was sick and I could not even talk and I asked them to go to the hospital to make a check and they almost ignored me and they said I can take Depon and I will be fine [meaning that instead of arranging for the minor to be examined by a doctor, in most cases police officers would simply administer paracetamol-based medication, sold at local chemists or pharmacies throughout Greece without prescription]. 95

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

M7:

M10:

M4: R: M6:

[M]‌y friend he has problems breathing he has this asthma thing. Whenever he would go to the police … no one would give him anything or no one assisted with any medication … one day also he was shocked [meaning that the minor went into shock] and they [meaning the police] also did not give so many attention about this. … Till 3am in the morning we were begging them to give him the ... [meaning that detained UAM were asking the police to provide asthma medication to said minor, albeit in vain as the police officers did not take any action on the matter]. They all tell you tomorrow the doctor will come and this “tomorrow” never comes. If you are lucky and you have this health issue in the morning time when the manager of the prison is there and you can communicate with him to explain that you are sick and you need to go to the hospital, they will move you to the hospital. … Otherwise they will tell you that there is no car to move you. If you have any emergency, they will not bring you anywhere … for example, if someone is sick or … has pains … they say wait … two days three days wait. [D]id you compain to the police? We called them and they came at the front of a cell and we complained I’m not feeling well because of food we want to change food. They said no. You have to eat this food. No more. Nothing is changed. Because of the food I get swelling inside in my mouth.

During the second interview stage, practitioners shared their professional opinions and insights with regard to this particular superordinate discussion theme. Their responses focused mainly on the problematic context of providing detained UAM with limited financial support, as presented earlier, and expecting them to use it in order to cover their needs, which included purchasing food and contacting their families. P3: [N]obody gives them food for hours, some of them have said that they only have one meal per day or some of them have said about giving money to the police officers to buy them food and they have not returned with the food. P7: [T]‌he food that they [meaning the police] provide it does not matter if it’s fresh, if it’s clean or not. There is a meal for you. … If you like it, eat it, if you don’t like it, leave it. … No matter if you will have stomach infection or not, but we can see that from the children that they come from the detention 96

Emergent Discussion Themes

P4:

centre, losing a lot of weight [meaning that unaccompanied children were being malnutritioned in detention]. [T]‌here was a child that … did not have enough money to call his parents and eat the same time [meaning on the same day], so he had to choose … he would either call his parents for five minutes or he would eat for the rest of the day … this is something that for me is against the basic human rights.

Practitioners also mentioned that due to the lack of funding on a national level, detention centres in Greece were in most cases unable to cover the minors’ needs in a proper manner. As a result, the provided facilities often lacked heating as well as cleaning equipment that would allow detained UAM to live in a respectable and hygienic environment. Furthermore, the complete absence of interpretation services and legal aid was also mentioned. In fact, the most important issue according to the professionals’ perspective was the fact that unaccompanied children were never informed about their legal status and the reason why they were being subjected to detention processes in the first place. Therefore, in their majority, practitioners compared UAM detention facilities to actual prisons. P1:

P6:

[N]‌one of them [meaning the detained UAM] mentioned any kind of … legal service … or any kind of translators to explain the situation … in the police station or for how long they will need to stay or why they are there or … they are not providing anything … there is absolutely no interpreter. [U]‌sually they [meaning the police] were asking us [meaning the NGOs] to facilitate interpretation. … I am aware that there is an NGO that visits detention facilities and may offer legal advice, but this is not provided from the State … most of them did not know why have they been brought to detention … their initial thought … was that they have committed a crime … these days that they were staying trapped inside the cell, you can imagine how big this idea was and how accumulative the fear was in their minds.

With regard to providing medical support to detained UAM, it was supported by practitioners that even though the need for health care was always present, proper actions were rarely taken on behalf of the police.22 More specifically,

22

According to the practitioners’ statements, in certain cases NGOs would intervene and submit formal complaints to the authorities, including the police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, so that detained UAM would be promptly transferred to medical centres. 97

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

when serious health issues needed to be taken care of, the police officers’ lack of proper training on such matters was obvious. In support of the latter, practitioners proceeded to sharing detailed information about specific incidents that occurred during detention, which confirmed that the minors’ medical needs were not treated in a proper manner. P11:

P3:

P6:

[W]‌hen a child has to go to the hospital … has any problem with his health whatsoever, usually the police does accompany him and take him to the hospital … and if they don’t, when the child tells us [meaning the NGO members of staff] that he has to go to the hospital and when we intermediate … to the police, then they always do it. [T]‌hey say a lot about health problems … some of them they have broken arms or broken fingers or breathing problems or problem with their back and nobody help them. … Even when they have declared their situation to the police officers. [T]‌here was a minor who was having withdrawal symptoms from heroin and the police was not aware of that and he [meaning the police officer] thought that he was just cold so they were giving him a blanket and nothing else.

The conditions of detention were also discussed by professionals during the focus group session and emphasis was placed on the complete absence of available services in favour of unaccompanied children. In detail, focus group members referred to the lack of interpretation services and consequently to the inability of detained UAM to communicate with the police and make their needs known. Also, they focused on the fact that unaccompanied children often depended on how willing and motivated police officers would be to assist them. According to their statements, this resulted in a situation where UAM detention facilities resembled penitentiaries. F2: [T]‌hey [meaning the police] don’t even have the basics. … No interpreters. F7: [D]‌etention centres … it refers to a prison. F1: For sure there is no interpretation for the minors in the detention centre that means that actually the police officers are not aware of the needs at all … it depends on … the personal motivation … of the police officers … my opinion is that detention centres [are] not appropriate places for any minor to live in. … They [meaning the detained UAM] need … appropriate specialised care which of course is not provided in the detention centre … every child has his personal story … personal needs … has the need for an individual approach. 98

Emergent Discussion Themes

Incidents of abusive behaviour Throughout the held interviews, every participant referred to the fact that during detention, unaccompanied children would frequently become the recipients of abusive behaviour performed by police officers (Papadopoulos, 2020, p 187). Such incidents would occur on a verbal, physical as well as on an emotional level. During the first interview stage in specific, unaccompanied children shared stories which revealed that police officers used to raise their tone and were particularly offensive towards detained UAM almost on a daily basis. Interestingly, to be subjected to verbal abuse in detention was quite common. In fact, even when minors would try to communicate with the police, they would be treated inappropriately and with an excessive use of profanity. This also occurred when detained UAM would complain for not being able to sleep during the night due to the inappropriate detention conditions, as described in detail earlier in this chapter. Also, it was supported that when NGOs visited detention centres, the behaviour of police officers towards unaccompanied children would drastically change and that it would return to its abusive state when said NGOs would leave the premises. Furthermore, according to participants, police officers would often provoke detained UAM regarding their religious beliefs. Especially during Ramadan, police officers would be offensive and disrespectful towards minors and they would intentionally provide them with food at midday, even though they were well aware of the fact that most unaccompanied children would not eat or drink before the sun would set. R: M2: M4: M10:

M5:

[H]ow would you describe the attitude and the behaviour of the police officers? They [meaning the police officers] weren’t helpful and they were always raising their voice. [W]‌hen we came in the police station then they asked are you Muslim? They used to use a language that they would send them back or deport them back to their country [meaning that police officers would often intimidate detained UAM and threaten them with deportation]. Whenever you ask for certain simple thing from the police station they say bad word and they curse and they say why did you come from your country? Go back to your country. We already have enough inside [participant showed his chest, meaning he had already been through enough] and you feel so bad and they try to insult you and make the situation worse for you. 99

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

M8:

[W]‌e [meaning detained UAM] tell them [meaning the police officers] that it’s Ramadan and … police told them [meaning that police officers would respond by saying the following] I don’t care about this and this is something that has to do with you and it’s not up to me and I cannot do anything about this. And then they said some bad words.

Moreover, unaccompanied children mentioned that incidents of physical abuse were also rather common during detention. In detail, they described certain events where police officers would harm detained UAM, either to keep them quiet or separate them from each other if they engaged in a fight. In that case, according to the minors’ statements, police officers would often transfer the individual who would start the argument to a nearby room, where they would be subjected to severe physical abuse and then they would be brought back to the room they were taken from. R: M8:

M2: M5:

M11: R: M10:

M6:

[H]ow about the behaviour of the police officers ...? [C]‌an you look? [Participant lifted his trousers to reveal bruises and scars on his leg.] If you debate with anyone in [participant made a direct reference to a specific detention centre, the name of which is not revealed due to confidentiality reasons] they would beat you to death. The police officer came inside … picked them up and he beat them. [T]‌here was a fight between two boys … then one policeman … he came inside and separated them and he took one of them to another room. It is a small room … he stayed there for three days and he was beaten. … There was beating so much. … This would happen because of fight. [I]‌t’s normal for the police to curse the people. Did any of the police officers physically abuse a minor in front of others? When the children they stay together in the room and they start to sing, like sad songs, they start to cry, they start to scream, so when the cop comes, the first child he would see cry or scream in front of him he will pick him. There was an Arabic guy. … He was in a small room and he was saying please I’m uncomfortable here please give me a place to sit out here, at the front of cell … they [meaning the police officers] bring him out and then he did not sit in one place he started moving and the policeman he hit his head with the wall [meaning that the police officer hit the minor’s head on the wall] and there is blood till now on the wall and 100

Emergent Discussion Themes

they [meaning the police] also did not brought him [meaning the injured unaccompanied child] to hospital and the blood was like this [participant showed the side of his face, in order to explain that said injured minor had blood across his face from his forehead to his chin] … after this incident we all were scared. If we did anything, they will do for us [meaning that detained UAM were afraid that they would be physically abused if they ever complained to the police regarding the conditions of detention]. Adding to the latter, it was strongly supported by unaccompanied children that police officers would never respond to their requests during detention and that if they persisted with their complaining they would be subjected to abusive treatment, both on a verbal as well as on a physical level.23 Also, it was mentioned that police officers would not hesitate to use their equipment to harm detained UAM, including gloves, batons and helmets. M8:

R: M8: M10:

23

One day something not good happened … they [meaning the police] bring this motorbike helmet … they made me wear it and then he [meaning the police officer] came with another one they wear some gloves and things like this and with one stick [meaning a baton] they kept beating the helmet on my head and they were pushing my head in the cell and then was the stick, right and left [participant used his hands to show which parts of his body were injured as a result to being assaulted by police officers in detention]. [W]hen they removed the helmet ... what happened? They wear gloves and they kept beating … the problem is that they don’t leave any mark in [the] body, so no one will see. The physical abuse usually it used to happen during the night … when the night comes so they [meaning the detained UAM] start to sing or they start to cry with loud voice and when the police come to ask them to stop, first they [meaning the police officers] use verbal abuse and then they turn off the TV [and] they take somebody [meaning a random detained unaccompanied child] outside the room so it’s definitely they will cross him and the physical abuse it will start.

One incident in particular involved a detained UAM who was repeatedly being verbally abused by police officers and when he stood up against this behaviour, he was handcuffed and physically assaulted, while being unable to protect himself. In addition, another incident was referred upon concerning an unaccompanied child having been placed in solitary confinement. 101

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

R: M10:

What do you mean cross? They take him [meaning an unaccompanied child] to the first room [meaning an empty detention room] and they cross him, they put him in the cross shape, they wrap their hands and they keep him for five hours, four hours … if you start to cry in this position, when you are crossed, he [meaning the police officer] will come back for you and he will beat you.

Similar to the first interview stage, the highly inappropriate behaviour of police officers towards detained UAM was also confirmed during the second and third stage, where incidents regarding the grievous verbal as well as the physical maltreatment of unaccompanied children were discussed. In addition, professionals working in the field of mental health shared vivid details on this matter and revealed that detained UAM were also subjected to severe emotional abuse, which can inversely alter the minors’ character in the long term. In fact, according to practitioners, any form of derogatory treatment or emotional abuse can cause severe distress and irreversible emotional trauma to unaccompanied children. Furthermore, based on their professional experience, practitioners referred to phenomena of invasive and degrading body-​search methods that were being extensively applied to detained UAM at the time. In support of the latter, they shared detailed information regarding specific incidents after having visited several detention centres in the wider area of N. Greece in the course of their profession, as well as after discussing these matters directly with unaccompanied children who had been subjected to abusive treatment in the recent past. P3: The police in Greece in general is very aggressive towards prisoners. This is a reality that I’ve heard from my profession and my experiences in other domains of work … they usually mention about abusive behaviour of the police … they say about verbal harassment and very bad tone of voice which order them to do something but also, they say about physical abuse … the police officers sometimes they hit the children inside and sometimes I watch boys coming with … broken ribs … and they say that have been beaten by the police in the detention centre. R: [H]as anyone shared any information regarding incidents of abuse? P2: [O]‌ne child once came to me and he said that while he was, for one night, in prison, the policemen physically abused him badly … and also psychologically … they were offending him in the worst way they could. 102

Emergent Discussion Themes

P4:

[O]‌f course, police officers were swearing at them [meaning towards detained UAM], thinking that they would not understand [meaning that unaccompanied children would be unable to comprehend the Greek language], but some of our children actually spent a lot of time in jail ... so they knew the basic words for swearing so they understood that they [meaning the police officers] were swearing at them.

As the second interview stage progressed, it was confirmed that incidents of abusive behaviour towards unaccompanied children were rather common and were mainly caused due to the inability of the police to establish proper communication pathways with minors. According to practitioners, if detained UAM complained about the lack of services, police officers would not hesitate to raise a hand on them in order to limit such complaints, thus confirming the minors’ statements on the matter, as presented earlier. Practitioners also supported that there were cases of police officers who had developed racist behaviour towards unaccompanied children. As a result, they were often treating detained UAM in a particularly sadistic manner. Moreover, practitioners referred to incidents where the level of physical abuse that minors would endure in detention clearly resembled acts of torture. According to their responses, the latter would certainly become an issue on a societal level, as unaccompanied children would never be able to overcome these adverse experiences, regardless of whether they would ever manage to acquire international protection in the future. P1:

P5:

P3:

[T]‌hey use that method because they [meaning the police] … cannot find … any kind of method for communication … they use it like we’ll do this so we’ll be like an example for others [meaning that police officers often chose to physically abuse detained UAM as a warning for other unaccompanied children so that they would stop complaining about the conditions of detention]. [T]‌here was a person from Pakistan … when he asked for the police officer something that he needed, he … slapped him … he slapped him and he told him that he has no right to ask for things and he will go back to his cell in order to send him back to Pakistan. … Because it’s where he belongs … there was a verbal and physical abuse. [T]‌hey [meaning the police] put their arms in the Christ position [meaning that they would place detained UAM in a cross-​shape position] and they hit with gloves in the ribs … that’s why some of them [meaning few detained UAM] have broken ribs when 103

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

they come in the safe zone … to hit them in order to break an arm or fingers … re-​traumatising in the detention centres … leads to general psychological problems … that minors carry with them after the detention … let’s not forget that these minors are going to grow up in our country [meaning that detained UAM may eventually acquire international protection and stay in Greece] … so it’s actually a social problem which we should take steps in order to fix it. With regard to incidents of abusive behaviour towards detained UAM, all members of the focus group meeting confirmed that during detention unaccompanied children were in their majority subjected to both verbal and physical maltreatment.24 In fact, it was so difficult for minors to leave these experiences behind after leaving detention, which resulted in them developing a strong fear of the police and would therefore drastically alter their behaviour in case they were ever in the presence of a police officer. It was also supported that unaccompanied children would become part of an abusive context simply by being placed in detention, which reveals the existence of a unique form of emotional harm. In other words, regardless of whether detained UAM would be provided with child-​appropriate services and treated with respect, it would be the overall detention setting that would affect their well-​being in the long term. F7:

24

[S]‌ome children they have a total different attitude when they speak to someone … for example an interpreter … and they have a completely different approach and attitude when for example a policeman is there. … I cannot share stories regarding abusive behaviour due to confidentiality issues but I can assure you that we have many. … I gave to the police … a full report … because I went there as a representative in order to conduct exactly this risk assessment … they totally ignored everything that I told them … they had an attitude … an arrogant attitude towards the help of a humanitarian NGO that they … they have this totally wrong perspective regarding humanitarian crisis.

For example, a particular case was brought up in the discussion concerning an unaccompanied child who had been subjected to sexual abuse in detention, as well as an incident where police officers had abused a minor both physically and verbally, in order to force him to plead guilty to an offence unknown to him and also to retract money from him. However, participants did not provide additional information regarding these incidents due to confidentiality reasons. 104

Emergent Discussion Themes

F2:

[O]‌nce they [meaning unaccompanied children] are in the detention, automatically they are in an abusive environment. … Even if food was given to them. Even if the police officers were the best people in the world … once they are in the detention and they are for that long periods of time, it’s abusive. I don’t care if they attend school, I don’t care if they have activities. They are in detention centre with police officers.

105

7

Ultimate Reflections It has been already well established that children and young people who migrate have an undebated claim to special support and care according to protectionist rhetoric (Bhabha, 2001, p 299). However, the discussion themes that emerged from this study’s interviews, both superordinate and subordinate, confirmed that a children’s rights approach was never applied properly in the case of unaccompanied children arriving in Greece. First and foremost, it was demonstrated that between the years 2016 and 2020, after entering the country in an irregular manner, unaccompanied children were not placed in a protective environment,1 as the law originally intended. Instead, they were almost automatically placed in detention facilities. In fact, it was proven that the conditions within detention facilities for unaccompanied children in N. Greece were inconsistent with a wide spectrum of international human rights instruments and legal frameworks, including the CRC and the national law (Papadopoulos, 2020, p 193). As a result, the well-​being of detained UAM was challenged considerably, as minors were subjected to a highly inappropriate setting which deprived them of the protection that was expected.2 During the interviews, unaccompanied children revealed that they were placed in rooms, the maximum capacity of which was in most cases surpassed.3 According to practitioners, this context was caused by the 1

2

3

As presented in previous chapters, this context was originally introduced by Art. 31 of Directive 2011/​95/​EU. After a series of amendments in the national law, this provision was implemented under Art. 32 of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, according to which, ‘[a]‌uthorities shall ensure the residence of unaccompanied minors … (c) in special centres for the accommodation of minors; or (d) in other accommodation suitable’ and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. This issue has been repeatedly referred upon by recent ECtHR case-law, where Greece was found to have acted in violation of the applicable law, as discussed in detail in Chapter 4. It was supported by participants that the number of available mattresses and blankets was particularly limited. As a result, unaccompanied children were expected to share 106

Ultimate Reflections

country’s inability and unpreparedness to host a high number of vulnerable migrant populations in suitable accommodation units. Also, the lack of hygiene was repeatedly mentioned throughout all interview stages. In fact, unaccompanied children confirmed that it was rather common to experience severe skin infections, as the mattresses and blankets that they were provided with in detention had never been cleaned and they were usually placed directly on the floor. With respect to the availability of restrooms, a detention setting was described where the toilet was located right next to said mattresses. Furthermore, the fact that the toilet lacked separating walls revealed the absolute lack of privacy, which further resulted in unaccompanied children feeling particularly offended due to the degrading living conditions that they were subjected to. Moreover, emphasis was placed on the fact that most detention centres were not equipped with showers and household appliances in general, such as washing machines, whereas if a shower was available, it would be placed next to the toilet. Hence, detained UAM were either obliged to wash their clothes in the sink or in the shower, or alternatively wear the same clothes throughout the time they would spend in detention. This context however created additional hygiene concerns and certainly demonstrated that during detention unaccompanied children were deprived of an appropriate environment. In addition, as regards their need to be provided with cleaning equipment, the interview results showed how the unavailablity of such items added significantly to the overall unhygienic setting that detained UAM were already experiencing. The duration of detention was also widely discussed by participants. On this matter, the fact that the majority of the unaccompanied children that participated in this study had remained in detention for prolonged periods, clearly shows the significant level of pathogeny that characterised the context of reception procedures for migrant minors, as the latter applied when this study took place. In addition, it reveals that in most cases, it was never examined by national authorities whether detention was in the minor’s best interests, or if it was applied as a measure of last resort.4

4

the provided equipment with other minors, which raised further privacy and hygiene issues. The participants’ statements and the author’s input on these issues are presented and discussed in Chapter 6. A detailed analysis of the Greek framework on UAM detention processes is provided in Chapter 3. More specifically, according to Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, ‘Minors are placed in detention facilities only as a measure of last resort, always in accordance with their best interests and only if it is confirmed that alternative or less restrictive measures cannot be applied instead’. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 107

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

As the interviews progressed, four unaccompanied children mentioned that they shared the same room with adults in detention, which clearly portrays the severe violation of the law that was occurring at the time.5 On this matter, Troller (2008, p 54) argues that placing adults alongside minors in detention may pose risks for children, as there is always the possibility of them being subjected to ill-​treatment at the hands of adults. However, even though the research results did not confirm that detained UAM had been the recipients of any form of maltreatment performed by adult cellmates, it was revealed that adults had been indeed placed in the same room with minors, albeit only briefly.6 This context undoubtedly corroborated the complete lack of child-​friendly accommodation facilities and the overall inexistence of an effective procedural framework which would guarantee the placement of unaccompanied children in a protective environment upon arrival in Greece. When it comes to the issue of providing unaccompanied children with proper services, according to the research findings the conditions of detention were not congruent with the letter of the law, as minors were in most cases placed in insufficiently equipped units. In fact, as the interviews progressed, it was demonstrated that detained UAM had never received legal aid or proper representation throughout the time they spent in detention. Therefore, to the minors’ eyes, to be placed in such facilities was the result of a crime which they were unaware of committing.7 The latter was also caused due to the fact that interpretation services were practically non-​existent in detention. Hence, there was no possibility for unaccompanied children to be properly informed in a language that they would understand regarding their legal status, the reasons and the duration of detention as well as the procedural steps that would follow. Additionally, the issue of age assessment procedures came up in the discussion.8 However, it was supported by practitioners that even though

5

6

7

8

As already presented in Chapter 3, according to Art. 11 of Directive 2013/​33/​EU, ‘[m]‌inors who have been separated from their families and unaccompanied minors shall be detained separately from adult detainees’. At the time this study was completed, this provision was implemented in the national context under Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020 and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. According to minors, in most cases said adults had been arrested not for entering the country irregularly, but for committing a criminal act punishable by the Greek Penal Code. This issue is elaborated upon in Chapter 6. It is discussed in Chapter 6 that unaccompanied children never truly understood why they were being subjected to detention processes, as no information was provided to them on the matter whatsoever. Age determination processes were originally introduced under JMD 1982 of 2016, as replaced by JMD 9889 of 2020. The followed procedure is described in Chapter 6. 108

Ultimate Reflections

national authorities were eligible to order such examinations, in practice this had never occurred. As a result, it was quite common for unaccompanied children to lie about their age, as they were under the false impression that by being registered as adults they would avoid detention and be transferred to appropriate hosting facilities instead (Troller, 2008, p 23). This demonstrates that unaccompanied children were completely unaware of their rights as a result of never having been provided with legal support, thus confirming the insufficient services in favour of detained UAM at the time. As regards the provision of medical assistance, the experiences that unaccompanied children shared as the interviews progressed portrayed a situation in which the law was being repeatedly ignored by state authorities. Apparently, various incidents took place in detention, which were not dealt with in a proper manner, as in most cases the police lacked the resources, ability, training or knowledge, which would allow them to provide detained UAM with prompt treatment. As a result, unaccompanied children were either receiving poor medical aid or none at all. Moreover, one of the minors’ greatest complaints was associated with the financial support that they were receiving. As presented in the previous chapter, this form of daily allowance was never enough for detained UAM to purchase items of their preference, including personal hygiene products. This situation shows that during detention unaccompanied children would experience a severe lack of services. For this reason, they were constantly seeking solutions that would allow them to save money and at the same time not be deprived of the essentials, such as food or water.9 Lastly, special focus was placed on the fact that during detention unaccompanied children were often exposed to severe abusive treatment, which included verbal, physical as well as emotional abuse, often followed by an overall vindictive behaviour expressed by police officers towards minors.10 This demonstrates that the vulnerable status of unaccompanied children was never taken into consideration. As a result, a violation of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle11 was occurring on a daily basis.

9

10

11

As presented in Chapter 6, this included sharing food or even their daily allowance with other detained minors, so that they would afford to purchase personal hygiene products or telephone cards in order to contact their families. The detrimental impact of detention to the physical and mental well-​being of unaccompanied children can also be viewed under the critical eye of zemiology, which takes a step beyond national legal frameworks and focuses on the individuals’ rights and needs (Soliman, 2019, p 236), with the aim to expose harmful social structures beyond the mere violations of the law. According to Art. 3(1) CRC, ‘[i]‌n all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’. 109

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Proceeding with the analysis of the findings, the practitioners’ insights will be shared at this point regarding the reasons behind the use of UAM detention in Greece, which is a topic that was discussed both during the second interview stage as well as during the focus group session. To this end, emphasis will be initially placed on understanding detention conditions for unaccompanied children. As the chapter progresses, the practitioners’ statements will follow with respect to the role of NGOs and the role of professionals working in the humanitarian sector in safeguarding the rights of detained UAM in the migration setting. By applying a structure similar to the previous chapter, the opinions of practitioners will be presented in the form of quotes, coupled with the author’s personal input and comments according to the IPA guidelines.12 In addition, the right to be heard will be explored and the participant’s responses throughout all three interview stages will be depicted concerning whether Art. 12 CRC was applied correctly in favour of detained UAM at the time. Lastly, the final part of this chapter will be structured around the participants’ suggestions in relation to the changes they would implement to the context of detention, followed by the practitioners’ recommendations regarding alternatives to UAM detention processes.

Understanding detention In the course of the discussion, both during the second interview stage as well as during the focus group session, professionals were invited to elaborate on why unaccompanied children were primarily being subjected to detention procedures upon irregular entry into Greece. During the second interview stage in specific, practitioners argued that the country was not prepared to receive such high numbers of asylum-​seeking individuals. The latter, combined with severe socio-​ economic instability (Bosworth and Vannier, 2019, p 58), allowed only for a limited number of accommodation facilities to be made available to vulnerable migrant populations. As a result, Greece was unable to

12

The ‘best interests of the child’ principle has been referred upon throughout this study. With respect to the applied methodology, according to Smith and Osborn (2003, p 66), ‘meaning is central, and the aim is to try to understand the content and complexity of those meanings rather than measure their frequency. … This involves the investigator engaging in an interpretative relationship with the transcript. While one is attempting to capture and do justice to the meanings of the respondents to learn about their mental and social world, those meanings are not transparently available –​they must be obtained through a sustained engagement with the text and a process of interpretation’. 110

Ultimate Reflections

host unaccompanied children in appropriate environments, which led to detention measures being applied instead. Thus, practitioners concluded that unless new structures were established or existing ones were upgraded, it would be pointless to hope for UAM detention to come to an end anytime soon. In addition, it was also supported that prolonged detention was caused due to an overall flawed national framework. For this reason, according to practitioners, detention facilities should collaborate with existing hosting structures for unaccompanied children, such as shelters or safe zones, so that minors would be subjected to detention strictly as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period, as it is stipulated in the law. Otherwise, the country’s inability to process the massive migration flows would always lead to an overall defective setting where unaccompanied children would be deprived of appropriate reception procedures. R: P10:

P3: P6: P4:

So, it’s a matter of legislation? [P]‌rotective custody seems to be child-​friendly in the legislation but then if you really mean to be child-​friendly, then you have to make child-​friendly buildings or child-​friendly rooms. … I think a real solution … would be rejecting the detention as a scenario for the minors and then giving all kind of care for guesthouses, for shelters. Our legal frame is not prepared for their care … there were no spaces … so they end up in detention. [T]‌o be fair, Greece was not prepared for this crisis … Greece was not prepared to facilitate accommodation to nearly 3,000 minors. [T]‌his is not only the fault of the detention centre. This is a huge hole in the whole system. … If the shelters are full and packed, then people are stuck in the safe zones and if safe zones are full and packed, then people are stuck in the detention centre and when those are … packed as well, then people are stuck in the borders. And that’s what it’s happening now. This is the reason why most of our children were there for more than two and three months [meaning that unaccompanied children are often subjected to prolonged detention]. … It’s a gap in the system.

With regard to the reasons behind the abusive treatment that detained UAM were subjected to at the time, in their majority practitioners supported that such incidents were caused mainly due to the fact that the national authorities in Greece had never received proper training on child-​safeguarding policies. The latter, combined with other important 111

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

factors, such as impunity, xenophobia and abuse of power,13 confirmed the complete lack of education of the police force, which is a matter of crucial importance. Hence, practitioners argued that training sessions would certainly be required. This way, stereotypes (Bosworth, 2018, p 544) would be avoided and police officers would be eventually able to exercise their role in an efficient manner by providing unaccompanied children with appropriate care and support during detention.14 P2: R: P11:

P8:

13

14

Unfortunately, policemen are not educated. They do not have the role to support, to understand, to be able to work in the best way with children. Is it a matter of education? Is it a matter of training? Is it a matter of politics? It’s a matter of politics ... Abuse of power ... For sure it’s lack of training. And education ... and for sure this is important to happen [meaning to educate police officers]. To train those people ... especially those who are treating minors. But I’m not sure that ... training could be enough for this kind of activities to stop. And this kind of abuse. [I]‌t’s the first time that this country hosts so many people at the same time, therefore they [meaning the police officers] are unprepared … we [meaning the national authorities in general] do not have the cultural awareness that is needed … so it’s a matter of training and education for me … the State does not provide any help … to the civil servants … so they do what they think it’s good.

On this matter, Art. 32(6) of Act 4636 of 2019 stipulates that ‘[i]‌ndividuals who undertake the protection of unaccompanied minors must be properly trained, according to the minors’ needs’, which remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. This provision replaced the pre-​existing framework of Art. 19(3) of PD 220 pf 2007, which originally added that in the context of their professional role, ‘[s]taff members have a duty of confidentiality about the personal data of unaccompanied minors’. Nevertheless, this study’s research findings confirmed that police officers who were allocated to detention facilities for unaccompanied children had never received specialised training on child safeguarding policies. According to Bosworth (2018), officers report difficulty in forging relationships with those in their care, both due to the language barriers and the cultural differences which are omnipresent as well as due to the fact that police officers are usually instructed to maintain distance from detainees, which causes them to rely on racialised and gendered stereotypes, thus making it particularly difficult to form bonds with them. More specifically, Bosworth (2018, p 3, p 14) notes that detainees ‘are symbolically and practically denied membership of any meaningful “audience” who would negotiate with “power-​holders” ’. Hence, they consider incarceration to be nothing more than the result of being foreign, which leads to an endemic form of institutional violence. 112

Ultimate Reflections

P3:

R: P4:

R: P10:

[M]‌inors should not be kept in detention centres with police officers but in places where there is trained staff in order to take care of them, cover their needs and when we say needs, it’s not only to stay in a room and have food. [C]an you somehow ... change the reality within detention? And if so, how could that be possible? [Y]‌ou have … to change their [meaning the police officers’] minds, their way of thinking, the way they see the refugees … so in order for you to make them respect the person [meaning the detained UAM] they have in front of them, you have to … educate them from the beginning. I am not very sure that this is very easy to happen, they don’t have the time … they are not eager. [A]ccording to your professional opinion, why is this happening in detention centres? Why do minors experience this kind of behaviour? I’m sure impunity is a very attractive factor for their … to explain their [meaning the police officers’] attitude … [training] could be a solution … this could work towards minimising the incidents [meaning incidents of abusive behaviour towards detained UAM]. … I think that impunity is the most important factor as well as the broader mentality with xenophobic elements.

As the discussion progressed, practitioners were kindly requested to share their opinions on whether NGOs could assist towards creating a safe environment for unaccompanied children upon arrival in the country. Their responses focused almost exclusively on the efforts that humanitarian organisations were already making at the time in order to advocate against UAM detention in general. More specifically, it was confirmed that to visit detention centres on a regular basis is an issue of utmost importance, so that NGOs would always be aware of the conditions that detained UAM are subjected to. In support of this, it was also argued that NGOs should not focus on improving the existing context. Instead, they should work collaboratively, so that unaccompanied children would be directly referred to appropriate long-​term accommodation structures as soon as they enter the country in an irregular manner. However, in order to achieve the latter, practitioners confirmed that NGOs should always be in direct collaboration with national authorities, which would include the competent Ministry, the Public Prosecutor’s Office as well as the police. Based on their role as professionals in the humanitarian sector, practitioners were further asked to elaborate on the ways in which they could help unaccompanied children overcome the difficulties that they endured in detention. On this matter, it was mentioned that the overall setting and 113

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

the conditions of detention could never be fully erased from the minors’ memory. Therefore, NGOs’ role aside, mental health professionals would be ideal in providing psychosocial support to unaccompanied children, which would certainly help them overcome their adverse experiences after leaving detention and being referred to suitable accommodation. R: P8: P6:

P4:

[D]o you think you can improve these conditions of detention through your [current professional] role? [W]‌e can train police officers on how to deal with specific situations and how to improve their communication skills … we can do that. [W]‌e have quite a strong responsibility on changing that and improving that … the main thing is the advocacy. To advocate against detention. Not to improve the conditions in detention. … Detention centres are not necessary. As a psychologist … I believe that I can assist them [meaning the detained UAM] … to give them strength to continue. I cannot delete their images or [the] experiences they had, but … I believe that I can manage to help them overcome the bad feeling that they have. … Our first and basic role is … to inform them about their rights. … We are there to protect the children. We are there to reassure that their best interests would be covered.

At this point, practitioners were asked whether they were familiar with the applicable law regarding detention processes for vulnerable migrant populations and unaccompanied children in specific. In their majority, they were indeed familiar with the CRC, although not that well informed concerning certain provisions in the national law. For this reason, similar to the process that was followed in the second interview stage, the members of the focus group meeting were provided with a brief analysis of the Greek framework, as presented in previous chapters. Subsequently, based on their knowledge regarding the conditions that detained UAM were experiencing at the time, participants were invited to comment on whether the law applied in practice. Overall, their responses were direct and the complete inexistence of child-appropriate activities and services in favour of unaccompanied children in detention was extensively discussed. P1: P6: P3:

[A]‌lmost nothing to be honest … almost nothing (is) available. The only thing that they [meaning the police officers] are provi­ ding is … and that is considered as a luxury … a TV at the entrance of the cells … no other activities … anywhere in N. Greece. I would say that the situation it’s worse than the first years of the refugee crisis. They do not have activities … in the detention 114

Ultimate Reflections

P4:

P11: P8:

centre, from what the minors say … and they do not have access to education. I would definitely say that the minors are not treated the way they should be. … They don’t have activities at all. I’ve heard cases where they stayed with adults and they were only minors … they don’t have legal support, not all of them at least. They definitely don’t have health system support. It’s only in extreme … cases … otherwise they [meaning the police officers] don’t do nothing. [O]‌vercrowded cells … there are no mattresses … or sometimes there are few … there are no care or protection services. [M]‌y experience is that … no one ever had an interpreter or an explanation about why they [meaning the detained UAM] are kept in there … it’s not a coincidence that all think that they all are in prison. The detention centre as a protective environment is not in their mind … they think it’s prison and they don’t know why … what they did wrong to be in prison … obviously there is no hygiene … no educational activities whatsoever.

During the first interview stage, unaccompanied children repeatedly complained that they were never given the opportunity to express themselves freely concerning the processes that they were subjected to upon arrival in Greece. Hence, they were thankful for having been invited to participate in this study and share their experiences. The same issue was also addressed in both the second and the third interview stage. In fact, it was supported by practitioners that the right to be heard was never applied correctly in favour of unaccompanied children, as in most cases they would be placed in detention as soon as they would enter the country in an irregular manner. Furthermore, as regards the minors’ willingness to speak openly about detention, practitioners argued that unaccompanied children would certainly feel more confident to elaborate on this issue, however only after being removed from detention and placed in suitable accommodation, such as a shelter or a safe zone. And this is due to the fact that in their majority, unaccompanied children believed that to share this kind of information would have a negative effect on their legal status if they were to remain in police custody. Therefore, according to practitioners, the experiences and insights of detained UAM could realistically be brought to life only through advocacy actions taken by NGOs, which would focus specifically on safeguarding the minors’ rights in the context of migration. In addition, it was strongly supported that the correct application of Art. 12 CRC would be achieved if unaccompanied children were given the opportunity to elaborate on their experiences concerning detention processes 115

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

during the interview stage of their application for international protection.15 In any case, it was confirmed that the right to be heard should never be viewed in isolation but under the lens of promoting the ‘best interests of the child’ principle, as enshrined in Art. 3 CRC. R:

[D]o you believe that ... they are provided with the ability to express their own opinions regarding the conditions they experienced in detention? P11: Yeah, but after they go out from detention. Not inside. … I think they can express their opinion and they can tell what happened to them inside the safe zones of the shelters where they feel safe actually and where they feel protected. Because many minors know that if they say something about abuse or whatever when they are inside the detention … this could have a negative effect. R: What is the proper way to have their voices heard? P10: Maybe indirectly through … NGOs … they [meaning the unaccompanied children] carry their experience and this is the first material for us to form our proposals towards the … police authorities [participant is referring to NGOs undertaking advocacy actions]. R: [A]ccording to Art. 12(2) CRC … the child shall in particular be provided with the opportunity to be heard in all judicial and administrative proceedings ... Would you say that this is a process followed here in Greece? P10: Directly no. Because nobody asks them. … I always try to see Art. 12 along with Art. 3. … If Art. 12 is not applied … it’s also a question whether Art. 3 is applied. … I doubt whether any administrative body could justify the protective custody as being in the best interests of the child. … Art. 12 CRC starts to be implemented more and more in judicial cases [meaning in Court procedures] but it’s not taken seriously during administrative procedures [meaning in detention]. During the third interview stage, the majority of focus group members supported that UAM detention resembles a prison. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect unaccompanied children to express themselves

15

This would further lead to new research paths, based on the idea of exploring whether asylum processes in Greece are conducted in a way that promotes the correct application of Art. 12 CRC, as well as whether the rights of unaccompanied children are properly safeguarded throughout the asylum hearing. 116

Ultimate Reflections

freely during such processes. Nevertheless, even if detained UAM were provided with the ability to exercise the right to be heard, it was confirmed that they would be willing to discuss the overall detention setting and share their experiences, albeit only after they would be transferred to a safe environment. In fact, it was supported that unaccompanied children tend to avoid sharing sensitive information regarding the conditions they endured, depending on the level of trauma that detention has caused them, as they often feel ashamed or guilty of their experiences. Hence, the proper way to provide detained UAM with the ability to be heard under the scope of Art. 12 CRC would only be through advocacy actions performed both by local and public actors, focusing specifically on protecting the rights of unaccompanied children in detention. R: F2:

F4:

[A]re these voices heard? Is the child heard? Are they [meaning detained UAM] being treated with proper humanitarian assistance? No, no and no. … They cannot express their opinion because that will mean that probably they will have abusive retaliation of what they’ve been saying. And it’s a matter whether they are going to say … disclose it after their detention … depending on the trauma that they have been subjected to. … Because we know that people might feel ashamed of what had been done to them … might feel guilty, whatever, may want to just make it go away … the experience. Detention centre is a prison … there is no voices to be heard. It’s not democracy.

Implementing changes At the end of each interview session, participants throughout all three stages were invited to elaborate on the changes that they would implement to the context of UAM detention, as it applied at the time this research took place. This topic led to an interesting discussion, in the course of which participants also shared their suggestions on alternative measures. Hence, during the first interview stage, emphasis was placed on the importance of protecting and promoting the rights of children. Therefore, in their majority unaccompanied children strongly argued that they would first focus on improving the conditions of hygiene. In detail, they would make sure that minors would be placed in appropriate accommodation facilities, which would be equipped with sterilised toilets at the least. Similarly, practitioners in the second and third interview stage stated that they would make sure that detained UAM would be provided with cleaning equipment at all times, so that they would be able to maintain a healthy 117

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

environment. The latter would also include providing unaccompanied children with clean mattresses and blankets. R: P1:

What is the first thing you would change? The first thing … provide them with the most basic things, like a clean place, equipment for them to use, proper place for them to make their own food and to make everything. M2: [T]‌he system inside, cleaning and the toilets … change mattress and blankets. M6: Mattress, blanket and washroom … first priority … someone for cleaning. M8: [C]‌leaning. Should be some tools for cleaning and for personal use as well. M9: [F]‌irst of all, I will clean everything. … I will do something to take care of minors and cleaning stuff and good stuff. Clothes, shoes, everything. M5: I understand that there is not a lot of space for the minors. … Organisations need to support … needs to be at least good food and at least clean place. Based on their experiences and the lack of protection and services that they endured in detention, unaccompanied children suggested several ways to improve this overall problematic setting. According to their responses, they would initially make sure that free or more affordable meals would be provided to detained UAM, followed by prompt medical assistance and the ability to contact their families. Moreover, they focused on the fact that legal aid was a crucial matter that should never be overlooked. Therefore, they would make sure that asylum advisors and interpreters would always be available. This way, unaccompanied children would be able to receive legal support and information about their rights and obligations both during detention as well as throughout the asylum procedures that would follow. In any case, it was strongly argued that detention measures of any kind should never be viewed as a viable accommodation alternative for children. M3: M6: M5: M4:

[A]‌translator [meaning an interpreter] for communication. [P]‌lease if you can do one thing. To provide water inside the cell … they just drink water from the toilet. [A]‌t least good food and at least clean place and again … the minors should not have place in prison like someone who committed something. They have to arrange something to communicate with our family. 118

Ultimate Reflections

M8:

[S]‌hould be a legal consultant to understand what I’m doing here and to understand the procedure. M7: Medical assistance and also food, attitude and behaviour from the police side and hygiene and cleaning. Practitioners focused on the fact that child asylum-​seekers should always be placed in suitable hosting units as soon as they arrive in the country, which would require a series of changes to be introduced to the national framework. In addition, it was supported that public services in Greece should always be allowed to visit accommodation facilities for unaccompanied children, including detention centres, and assess whether the living conditions are congruent with the applicable law. Furthermore, according to practitioners, the entire referral pathway for unaccompanied children should be restructured. This way, UAM detention procedures would be avoided entirely, whereas the ‘best interests of the child’ principle would be safeguarded. Therefore, until proper hosting units would be made available, a fully equipped reception centre operating under NGO administration would be the ideal alternative. On this matter, participants suported that only NGOs have the practical knowledge and expertise in providing vulnerable migrant populations, and unaccompanied children in particular, with services of the highest quality that a detention centre would never be able to offer. Nevertheless, such facilities would only act as a temporary solution until unaccompanied children would be placed in an accommodation setting of a more long-term character. P6:

P3:

P8:

Imprisoning a child … is not an option. … Even improving their conditions, a prison cell is a prison cell. … Shut down detention centres and open safe zones with trained social educators who are skilled, working with minors. I would change the referral pathway, making more safe zones and shelters for the minors … safe zones would be a good first option for minors to come because we have trained staff for them and we have the possibility to cover basic needs … the referral pathway which is present at this time, is when a minor is identified, is sent to the detention centre. Ideally, I wouldn’t have detention centres. … I would have something like an alternative brief shelter-​scheme, where they can come for a few days … places where they can be safe … the safety also has to do with ensuring their health … both physical and psychological. Ensuring that they have access to a social support network. Ensuring they have access to education, to recreational activities, all the things that are their rights to have as minors. 119

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

P2:

I believe that no minor should be in any detention centre. If there is a need of a change, would be first to create services and shelters for all the minors that they come in Greece ... for all unaccompanied children ... They must be kept safe ... we must first of all take care of their dignity ... It’s not about only guarding them to be safe. It’s about supporting them in … basic psychosocial needs.

During the third interview stage, focus group members were invited to engage in a discussion and share their experiences as professionals working in the humanitarian sector and more specifically in child-​protection programmes. Hence, in the course of the meeting, it was supported that the Greek law should be updated so that the rights of unaccompanied children would be protected throughout the reception procedure. Similar to the previous stage, it was supported that a child-​oriented framework would be achieved either by replacing the existing referral pathway with viable alternatives, or by improving the current conditions in detention. With regard to the first option, it was confirmed that unaccompanied children need to be placed in a protective setting as soon as they are arrested for entering the country in an irregular manner. According to the members of the focus group meeting, any form of detention inevitably leads to the institutionalisation of unaccompanied children and subsequently to a domino effect that has an impact on their ability to take a step forward with their lives. Therefore, UAM detention should never be viewed as an accommodation alternative, rather as a form of imprisonment. In fact, having witnessed the psychological effect that detention has on unaccompanied children, focus group members were positive that either safe zones or shelters that operate under NGO administration with highly trained staff would surely cover the minors’ needs, while providing them with adequate support. The latter would include educational and recreational activities as well as appropriate services. As the discussion progressed, focus group members were invited to share their suggestions as regards the changes that they would implement to the context of UAM detention. In their majority, they claimed that they would replace detention units with open, albeit secured, establishments, where unaccompanied children would be provided with proper support until they could be referred to long-​term structures. In addition, they would implement educational training sessions for national authorities in Greece, so that police officers would eventually be able to assess in a proper way all matters that fall within the child protection scope. Furthermore, emphasis was placed on the fact that detention facilities for unaccompanied children were in most cases awfully overcrowded. In fact, due to lack of space, detained UAM who experienced health issues were often placed among children who were in good condition. Such incidents 120

Ultimate Reflections

were found to be unacceptable and the members of the focus group session stated that they would make sure that in case unaccompanied children were unhealthy, they would be transferred to special units, where they would be provided with prompt medical treatment. Moreover, the issue of overextended detention periods was brought up and it was supported that such phenomena would be avoided unconditionally. F1:

F7: F2:

F5:

F4: F6:

[F]‌rom my point of view … they should be accommodated from the first moment that they are identified [meaning as soon as detained UAM experience health issues] in a specialised centre, shelter, where, first of all, a very good evaluation of their needs should take place. [T]he problem that is exactly there … in the detention centres. … If you institutionalise a child, it will actually create this bad domino effect. [W]‌hat the child needs is a home. And it’s not the detention centre, obviously. We need to offer a stable environment, where they can actually go to school … they can do their activities and they can grow old and develop. [P]‌rovide the minors there [with] hygiene and general good social services … and at the same time of course train the staff. … I think they would improve a lot the conditions in the detention centre. [R]eplace the policemen with people that can follow the UAM cases, that can ... give them access to medical services. [T]hey need to be shorter in there [meaning that unaccompanied children should spend as less time as possible in detention].

Professionals throughout the second and the third interview stage once again focused on the plethora of incidents of abusive treatment that detained UAM were being exposed to. On this matter, practitioners strongly argued that national authorities in Greece are often unwilling to support foreigners. As a result, phenomena of inappropriate behaviour towards detained UAM will continue to occur, unless proper education and training is provided to police officers. The latter would protect and promote the correct application of the law when it comes to UAM detention processes, so that unaccompanied children would never again ‘miss the meaning’ of their childhood, as eloquently put. P4: F2:

[A]‌n educated person would never abuse the power given to him, when talking about minors … especially minors. Police officers … obviously are not trained … we end up saying if a police officer is a good person, he will take the initiative to take care of the minors. That’s a ridiculous thing to say in a civilised 121

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

F6: F5:

F2: P7:

society … it’s not depending on each individual’s character and personality … that’s very degrading. [T]rain the policemen to be more efficient and sensitive. [T]‌his child needs trained people around him. … I think the police officer, if he is trained from people that has experience with the unaccompanied minors … I think he can be more professional in his relation with the child. [I] would probably first make sure that the law is ... applied. And if the law, as it is, is applied, I think we have all our problems solved. [W]e [meaning the NGO] can [train] the people that they work in the detention centre ... run sessions with the children to make them aware of their rights because most of the children they lost the meaning of their rights ... they missed the meaning of the childhood inside the detention centre.

122

8

Reaching a Conclusion As presented throughout this study, the Greek law stipulates that upon irregular entry into the country unaccompanied children must be placed in an overall protective environment where they should receive appropriate care, support and services.1 Detention may still apply, albeit only in exceptional circumstances and strictly on a temporary basis, until detained UAM are referred to suitable accommodation units of a more long-​term character.2 This process demonstrates that as soon as unaccompanied children are placed in detention, they obtain a unique status according to which they are not to be punished or receive moral condemnation since they were never criminals per se.3 Nevertheless, by inviting participants to depict the true 1

2

3

This setting is referred upon by the author as ‘custody of a protective character’ and is described in Chapter 3. In detail, national authorities must ensure that unaccompanied children are placed in specialised centres or any other appropriate accommodation upon arrival, so that their needs are adequately covered. The latter was introduced by Art. 31 of Directive 2011/​95/​EU, which was implemented in the Greek law originally under Art. 32 of PD 141 of 2013, as replaced by Art. 32 of Act 4636 of 2019 and amended by Act 4686 of 2020 and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. See Chapter 1 and Chapter 3, where UAM detention processes are elaborated upon in depth. More specifically, according to Art. 48(2) of Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, ‘Minors are placed in detention facilities only as a measure of last resort, always in accordance with their best interests and only if it is confirmed that alternative or less restrictive measures cannot be applied instead’. This provision remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​ see disclaimer. Thus, Membership Theory, which was discussed in Chapter 4, would not apply as unaccompanied children are not to be excluded from society or denied of the privileges that citizens normally hold. On this matter, Stumpf (2006, p 397) notes that when it comes to detained UAM, it is not about deciding whether unaccompanied children should be members of the society or even worthy of inclusion in the national community, as such a discussion would have been based on the premise that migrant minors are subjected to detention processes for violating the national law on irregular entry. However, as discussed earlier in this study, this is not correct, because unaccompanied children in Greece are 123

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

face of detention that unaccompanied children experienced upon arrival in Greece, this study’s results showed that the conditions that detained UAM were subjected to were in complete violation of the relevant legislation. The conclusions of this research were reached by giving voice to participants and deconstructing their experiences while staying in line with the ‘double hermeneutic’ process of IPA, as presented in previous chapters, which is an approach that has not, to this day, been applied in studies that focus on the status of detained UAM in the Greek context. Accordingly, it was the qualitative tools of IPA that allowed for an exploration to occur regarding the positionality of detained UAM in Greece within the crimmigration debate, followed by an assessment on whether the right to be heard was applied correctly in the minors’ favour. In the course of the held interviews, participants provided information concerning the hygiene issues that unaccompanied children experienced in detention, the deeply problematic detention setting, the complete lack of proper services and also referred to multiple incidents of abusive behaviour that detained UAM endured. As the interviews progressed, unaccompanied children shared their lived experiences and their responses confirmed that the protection that they were entitled to during detention was considerably challenged. Moreover, the contribution of professionals, both individually as well as in the form of a focus group meeting, corroborated the responses that had already been provided by unaccompanied children during the first interview stage and further strengthened the research findings. Hence, it was revealed that at the time this project took place, unaccompanied children were certainly not being placed in an appropriate environment, as the law originally intended. On the contrary, as soon as they would enter the country in an irregular manner, they would be subjected to highly unfriendly conditions. In fact, this would occur regardless of the repeated reports of the Greek Ombudsman (2005,4 2006,5 2014,6 20177) on

4

5

6

7

temporarily placed in detention as soon as they cross the national borders in an irregular manner, until they are further referred to child-​friendly facilities. Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2005), Special Report on Administrative Detention and Deportation of Migrant Minors, October 2005. Available in Greek from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​docs/​203​224.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2006), Conclusions on the situation of unaccompanied minors in Pagani-​Mitilini: Report on administrative detention and removal of minors from October 2005. Available in Greek from http://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​ Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2014), Report after the monitoring visit at Amygdaleza Detention Centre. Available in Greek from http://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​ resour​ces/​ekt​hesi​_​aft​opsi​as_​a​migd​alez​a_​2-​18-​2014.pdf Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2017), Press Release: Unacceptable conditions for detaining unaccompanied minors in northern Greece, 31 July 2017. Available from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​press-​rele​ase-​-​4.pdf 124

Reaching a Conclusion

the matter, inviting the Greek government to reform the national framework in order to safeguard the rights of unaccompanied children in a more effective manner, to eliminate detention measures entirely and to restructure the reception process for vulnerable migrant populations altogether. Furthermore, this study’s findings demonstrated that due to the country’s inability to subject unaccompanied children to custody of a protective character, as discussed earlier, Greece resorted to the de facto use of criminal justice facilities instead. As a result, unaccompanied children were being exposed to exceptionally adverse environments, similar to those that adults were subjected to (Greek Ombudsman, 20168). This included being placed in overcrowded rooms, where detained UAM would come across a profound lack of services, most often followed by the abusive behaviour of police officers for lengthy periods of time. In other words, it is obvious that a conflation of the law was occurring during detention, as the socio-​legal status of unaccompanied children was neither protected nor promoted as per the provisions of the CRC and the Greek legal framework (Papadopoulos, 2020, p 183, p 191). In practice, unaccompanied children were experiencing a form of custody, which was far from being considered ‘protective’. This context led to the de facto criminalisation of migration and to a blatant distortion of children’s rights, with dire consequences for the well-​being of unaccompanied children in specific, as they were being subjected to a setting during which their best interests were clearly overlooked. Moreover, according to the interview results, detention would apply regardless of whether unaccompanied children would be given the opportunity to submit an official request for international protection or simply express their intention to do so.9 This demonstrates that from 2016 to 2020 detention was at the forefront of the national authorities’ choices and also promoted by the competent Ministry. Thus, this study revealed that custody of a protective character was never used as an excuse for detention and that there never was a matter

8

9

Greek Ombudsman Department of Children’s Rights (2016), Intervention of the Greek Ombudsman regarding unaccompanied minor refugees and migrants, 30 March 2016. Available in Greek from https://​old.synigo​ros.gr/​resour​ces/​dt-​asyn​odey​toi-​anili​koi-​3032​016.pdf The issue is presented and discussed in Chapter 3. More specifically, according to the Practical Handbook for Border Guards (2006, p 54), ‘[a]‌third-​country national must be considered as applicant for asylum/​international protection if he/​she expresses –​in any way –​fear of suffering serious harm if he/​she is returned to his/​her country of origin or former habitual residence’. This provision was originally implemented in the national context under Art. 34(d) of Act 4375 of 2016, as amended by Art. 65(8) of Act 4636 of 2019 and Art. 6(4) of Act 4686 of 2020 and remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 125

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

of prioritisation of the latter over the former. On the contrary, the form of detention that unaccompanied children were subjected to was falsely misinterpreted as a protective accommodation alternative. Ergo, a hybrid containment process was occurring, which led to unaccompanied children being subjected to a unique state of affairs upon irregular entry into the country, without any procedural safeguards being taken in their favour.10 On this matter, Pisani (2018, p 163, p 164) notes that processes of containment and securitisation ‘feed into the illegalisation and crimmigration of forced child migrants’. This confirms that when detention is applied to migrant minors, it sets an illegalisation process in motion, often producing a course of action within a securitisation setting, which is based on the premise that external and internal border controls must be fortified. Indeed, this study’s research findings revealed that from 2016 to 2020 custody of a protective character was superseded by detention processes (Papadopoulos, 2020, p 194) in the Greek domestic policy. This means that in practice unaccompanied children were being almost routinely arrested upon arrival and further placed in an overall inhumane and degrading environment, the conditions of which were certainly not in conformity with the law. As a result, this context led to the criminalisation of unaccompanied migrant minors through detention processes. To this end, as opposed to the national framework which was presented in detail earlier in this study,11 the legal and procedural steps that actually succeeded the irregular entry of unaccompanied children into the country when this research was conducted were those shown in Figure 8.1. Adding to the analysis that preceded, the author took a step further and explored whether the right to be heard12 was being applied correctly in

10

11

12

This could be seen as the result of an overall archaic national asylum system, combined with a lack of effective remedies and a complete absence of an appropriate legal and procedural framework capable of protecting the rights of asylum-seeking individuals in a proper and efficient manner (Skordas and Sitaropoulos, 2004, p 28). The issue of irregular entry into Greece between the years 2016 and 2020, as well as the legal and procedural steps that would be expected to apply in favour of asylum-​seeking individuals, including unaccompanied children, is discussed in Chapter 3 and presented in Figure 3.1. The right to be heard is elaborated upon in detail in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4. More specifically, according to Art. 12(1) CRC, ‘States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child’, whereas Art. 12(2) CRC stipulates that ‘the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through 126

Reaching a Conclusion

Figure 8.1: The criminalisation of UAM through detention processes UAM entering the country in an irregular manner.

Either custody of a protective character would apply (UAM are placed in special or other appropriate accommodation).

Or detention would apply, albeit only as a measure of last resort and only if less restrictive measures cannot be applied instead.

In practice, custody of a protective character is superseded by detention.

UAM are placed directly in detention facilities and they are subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment; in conditions which are clearly not in conformity with the law.

As a result, UAM are criminalised through detention processes.

favour of unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon irregular entry into Greece. As regards this issue, it was demonstrated in previous chapters that the national law does not make a direct reference to this particular form of detention being a procedure of administrative character. Therefore, given that Art. 12(2) CRC grants children the right to express themselves freely with respect to the judicial and administrative proceedings that affect them, one might assume that it is rather unclear whether the right to be heard would apply in the case of detained UAM in Greece. However, a critical examination of this study’s interview results would certainly suggest otherwise. In detail, according to the participants’ responses, when this research took place detention was being applied strictly as a temporary replacement measure to custody of a protective character (for example, Papadopoulos and Pycroft, 2019, p 591; Papadopoulos, 2020, p 180). The latter was eloquently described by participants, who painted in vivid colours the numerous violations, both of the CRC and the domestic legislation that were taking place during detention. Interestingly, said violations would occur in spite of the country’s efforts to increase the number of accommodation facilities and improve the quality of services that were a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law’. 127

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

being provided to vulnerable migrant populations at the time (see EKKA, 2017,13 2018,14 201915). This confirms that unaccompanied children were being subjected to a detention setting which did not have judicial or administrative elements, rather simply lacked the ability to adhere to certain child-​safeguarding standards. In fact, as the discussions progressed, it was demonstrated that detained UAM were unable to express themselves in a free manner concerning the matters that affected them and more specifically describe the conditions they experienced in detention, elaborate on the rights which were granted to them and also question the processes that they were subjected to (Papadopoulos and Van Buggenhout, 2020, p 15). So, to this day their voice had remained silenced and their plight unnoticed, contrary to the requirements of the law, which was caused by the fact that unaccompanied children would be placed in detention almost automatically as soon as they would cross the national borders. Hence, upon arrival in Greece unaccompanied children would be treated as if they had committed a criminal act punishable by law, which confirms that this particular form of detention that minors were subjected to clearly consisted of administrative elements. Furthermore, the fact that detained UAM would experience a setting that resembled penal structures reveals the lack of clarity in the national framework with regard to certain aspects of the applied detention measure and further corroborates the criminalisation of unaccompanied children through such processes. This resemblance shows that a discrepancy still exists in the Greek law between safeguarding the best interests of unaccompanied children during detention and also guaranteeing the correct application of Art. 12 CRC in their favour. Moreover, it proves that the accurate implementation of the right to be heard depends entirely on the host countries’ aptness to incorporate the CRC provisions into their domestic policy in an effective manner.

From final remarks … It has been supported in the literature (James, 2007, p 262), that giving voice to children in research is not limited to the narrative that a child produces but

13

14

15

National Centre for Social Solidarity (2017), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 December 2017. Available from www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org. eca/files/EKKA%20dashboard%2031-12-2017.pdf National Centre for Social Solidarity (2018), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 October 2018. Available from https://reliefweb.int/report/greece/​ situation-update-unaccompanied-children-uac-greece-31-october-2018-enel National Centre for Social Solidarity (2019), Situation Update: Unaccompanied Children (UAC) in Greece 31 December 2019. Available from https://data2.unhcr.org/en/docume​ nts/details/73385 128

Reaching a Conclusion

also allows the researcher to develop a unique stance regarding the social world from a child’s perspective. Therefore, under the premise that children’s voices inherently contribute to theory-​building in our social world (Papadopoulos and Van Buggenhout, 2020, p 17), this qualitative project adds to contemporary socio-​legal and criminological research and practice by aiming to create a safe and protective environment where the voice of detained UAM is always heard. The issue that was most commonly brought up during the interviews was the fact that unaccompanied children needed to feel protected at all times. In fact, during the first stage, participants claimed that the moment they entered detention, they felt like they were being punished for a reason unbeknownst to them and that they were committing a crime by requesting international protection. As presented in previous chapters, it was even supported that the abusive setting that detained UAM endured was often understood by them as commonly accepted practice.16 This context revealed that an efficient reception framework, which would be capable of properly covering the needs of unaccompanied children and protecting their rights upon arrival, was absent at the time. It is worth noting that the flawed reception procedures for unaccompanied children in Greece have been repeatedly referred to by the ECtHR17 as well as by the CPT (2019,18 p 54), arguing that ‘the situation has become even more acute than it already was in 2016’, especially because ‘no additional shelter places have been created and the funding problems for shelters provided by civil society organisations have put about half of these places at

16

17

18

On this matter, the Committee (2009, p 26) supports that ‘[m]‌uch of the violence perpetrated against children goes unchallenged both because certain forms of abusive behaviour are understood by children as accepted practices, and due to the lack of child-​ friendly reporting mechanisms. … Thus, effective inclusion of children in protective measures requires that children be informed about their right to be heard and to grow up free from all forms of physical and psychological violence’. UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) General Comment No. 12 (2009): The right of the child to be heard, 20 July 2009, CRC/​C/​GC/​12. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4ae562​ c52.html Recent ECtHR case-​law regarding the violation of Art. 3 CRC in the case of detained UAM is discussed in Chapter 4. See M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (application no. 30696/​ 09), available from www.refwo​rld.org/​cases,ECHR,4d39bc​7f2.html; Rahimi v. Greece (application no. 8687/​08), available from www.refwo​rld.org/​cases,ECHR,4d9c3e​482.html; Sh.D. and others v. Greece, Austria, Croatia, Hungary, North Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia (application no. 14165/​16), available from http://​hudoc.echr.coe.int/​eng?i=​001-​193​610; and H.A. and others v. Greece (application no. 19951/​16), available from www.refwo​rld. org/​cases,ECHR,5c780a​0d7.html Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (2019), 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 (CPT) from 10 to 19 April 2018, CPT/​Inf 4. Available from https://​r m.coe.int/​168​0930​c9a 129

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

risk of being closed’. According to the CPT, this state of affairs irrevocably affected the way in which the ‘best interests of the child’ principle of Art. 3 CRC would apply in the case of unaccompanied children experiencing detention upon arrival in Greece. Similarly, the European Committee of Social Rights (201919) placed emphasis on the need for immediate measures to be introduced to the national policy (Papadopoulos, 2021b). In fact, the decision concludes that Greece is still expected to ensure that alternatives to UAM detention are implemented into practice, so that unaccompanied children would be provided with immediate access to age-​appropriate accommodation as soon as they enter the country. This proves that the humanitarian aspect of subjecting unaccompanied children to detention processes instead of placing them in custody of a protective character was never taken into consideration on behalf of the national authorities. Moreover, it is the maltreatment that detained UAM were experiencing at the time (Papadopoulos, 2020, p 194) that highlights the deficiencies in the Greek framework and confirms their criminalisation. For this reason, widening the scope of crimmigration (see Stumpf, 2006; Aas, 2014; Di Molfetta and Brouwer, 2019) would be required, so that it becomes more inclusive in both theory and practice. The latter would be achieved through emphasis being placed on how the increasing tendency in criminalising migration policies can have an impact on migrant minors arriving in host countries. Hence, the phenomenon of unaccompanied children being criminalised through detention processes would be acknowledged on an international migration policy level. As a result, the minors’ vulnerable status would be protected and promoted, regardless of the reception procedures that would follow their irregular entry. This project also focused on the fact that to this day, the link between detention processes for unaccompanied children in Greece and the right to be heard, as enshrined in Art. 12 CRC, had remained considerably under-​ researched. Therefore, an assessment was conducted on whether protection imperatives were applied correctly when unaccompanied children were subjected to detention. More specifically, whether detained UAM were given the right to be heard and express themselves in a free and open manner with respect to the proceedings that affected them, both on a judicial as well as on an administrative level.

19

European Committee of Social Rights (2019), Decision on admissibility and on immediate measures: International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece, Complaint No.173/​2018, 23 May 2019. Available from http://​hudoc. esc.coe.int/​eng?i=​cc-​173-​2018-​dadm​issa​ndim​med-​en 130

Reaching a Conclusion

The findings revealed that the national framework in Greece lacks certain qualities which would be required so that the country’s obligations towards protecting the rights of unaccompanied children would be guaranteed. In detail, the implementation of the CRC within the national law appeared to be incorrect, as migrant minors were in practice deprived of certain rights, including the right to be heard, both at arrival and also throughout the reception process. Thus, the importance of correctly applying Art. 12 CRC in the domestic policy and hearing the voices of unaccompanied children in detention was stressed. This led to the introduction of a new concept which provided the basis for the research analysis that followed. More specifically, stemming from the idea that the CRC will always be a critical milestone in protecting the rights of children on a global level, the author’s original theory on the existence of a ‘vicious circle of UAM detention’20 was presented, which allowed for an exploration to occur with respect to whether UAM detention in Greece is considered to be an administrative process according to Art. 12(2) CRC. Under this premise, it was demonstrated that international standards in the area of child protection had not been implemented properly in the national framework. This further proves that the correct application of the right to be heard in favour of detained UAM had remained to this day an unsolved topic in the Greek domestic policy. Therefore, this study’s results confirm that Art. 12 CRC should always be viewed as the vessel that would give the right to unaccompanied children to express their views ‘without being manipulated or subjected to undue influence or pressure’ (Committee, 2009, p 22). In fact, the latter would occur regardless of the reception procedures that would apply when migrant populations arrive in host countries. This includes the case of Greece, where detention processes for unaccompanied children act as a replacement measure to custody of a protective character, as revealed by the research findings and discussed in detail earlier in this study. Hence, it is the correct application of the right to be heard that will allow unaccompanied children to narrate their experiences in a free manner and furthermore question the applied proceedings accordingly. Otherwise, UAM detention processes will inevitably be characterised by a severe violation of children’s rights and the protective element of custody, along with the right to be heard, will never be safeguarded in the context of migration.

20

According to the author, detained UAM in Greece appear to be caught in a ‘vicious circle’, as the detention setting which they are subjected to upon arrival in the country to this day remains unclear both on a legal as well as on a procedural level. This unique phenomenon, which the author identifies and refers to as the ‘vicious circle of UAM detention’, is presented in Chapter 4. 131

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

… to future research paths In late 2020, the so-​called ‘abolishment of protective custody’ was announced by the Greek government amidst a plethora of changes in the domestic policy, which included the establishment of the Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors.21 Hence, Act 4760 of 2020 soon became part of the national law, allegedly initiating a new period for Greece, during which unaccompanied children would no longer be placed under ‘protective custody’.22 From a procedural point of view, the new legal framework stipulates that as soon as unaccompanied children are located in any part of the country,23 they would be promptly subjected to reception procedures and then referred to suitable facilities. It appears that the recently introduced legislation set the ground for securing the swift transfer and placement of specific groups of individuals in proper accommodation upon completion of all necessary reception procedures. 24 This includes unaccompanied children as well as any 21

22

23

24

The Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors was introduced by the Ministry of Migration and Asylum in order to implement and supervise the National Strategy in Greece so that the protection of unaccompanied minors and well-​being of third-​country nationals and stateless individuals who are unaccompanied minors or separated from their families, would be ensured. Available from https://​migrat​ion.gov. gr/​en/​gram​mate​ies/​eid​iki-​g ra​mmat​eia-​pro​stas​ias-​asyn​odey​ton-​anili​kon/​ According to the author, when referring to the accommodation setting that Greece is expected to offer to unaccompanied children in order to ensure that their needs are adequately covered upon arrival in the country (as per Art. 31 of Directive 2011/95/EU, as implemented in the Greek law), the use of the term ‘custody of a protective character’ would certainly be more accurate. That is because the term ‘protective custody’ makes a direct reference to PD 141 of 1991, which in its original form did not include the case of children in the context of migration and unaccompanied children in particular. This issue is discussed in depth in Chapter 3. More specifically, according to Art. 43(1) of Act 4760 of 2020, ‘[u]‌naccompanied minors, third-​country nationals or stateless persons, are not placed in the protective custody of article 118 of PD 141 of 1991 (A’ 58), only due to the fact that they lack a safe or known residence. In this case, the Public Prosecutor for Minors or, in their absence, the First Instance Public Prosecutor, acting as a temporary guardian of unaccompanied minors in that territorial jurisdiction and the Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors of the Ministry of Immigration and Asylum are informed without delay. The Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors ensures the immediate referral of unaccompanied minors to an appropriate accommodation structure, as soon as a Prosecutor’s order is issued’. In addition, according to Art. 43(2), ‘[t]hird-​country nationals or stateless persons, who are identified as unaccompanied minors … are immediately referred to emergency accommodation through the Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors and the competent Public Prosecutor is informed accordingly, so that a transfer order is issued’. In light of the new framework, national authorities in Greece undertook the responsibility of making sure that homeless unaccompanied children or those living in precarious 132

Reaching a Conclusion

third-​country nationals or stateless persons who are identified as such. In addition, national authorities publicly committed to referring detained UAM, who were at the time located in police stations and RIS operation units,25 to appropriate hosting facilities. However, even though these changes were brought in as a promising improvement to the Greek law, the pre-existing framework, according to which unaccompanied children may be subjected to detention processes upon arrival in the country, has practically remained unaffected. This means that the national policy to this day appears to be poorly structured (Papadopoulos, 2020, p 185), which is mainly caused due to a clear absence of efficient policies towards unaccompanied children. As a result, certain crucial questions remain unanswered concerning the ways in which the alleged improvements would be applied in practice, especially since unaccompanied children can still be subjected to detention, regardless of the widespread criticism and the repeated condemnations that the country has received on the matter in the past (Papadopoulos, 2021a). Therefore, UAM detention processes in Greece is a topic that now becomes more important and radiant than ever. That being so, this study’s results can be the starting point for the domestic policy to be properly reinvented so that new rights for unaccompanied children can be debated and novel aspects of existing rights can be addressed. This way, the reception mechanisms that currently apply when unaccompanied children enter the country would be strengthened and the overall referral pathway would be replaced. Consequently, a series of efficient migration policy techniques would be implemented in the national legislation and Art. 12 CRC would be correctly embodied into the Greek context, so that unaccompanied children would be provided with the right to be heard concerning all judicial and administrative proceedings that affect them. For the latter to be achieved though, it must be clarified in the letter of the law that the form of detention that may still apply in the case of unaccompanied children is in fact an administrative measure.

25

conditions would be securely transferred to safety, where they would receive psychosocial support, interpretation services as well as medical aid. The latter would be achieved through the introduction of a national tracing and protection mechanism, followed by the establishment of emergency accommodation facilities throughout the country. In addition, Greece proceeded to the gradual termination of short-​term accommodation alternatives for unaccompanied children. This process started in mid-​2020, the plan originally being for existing safe zones and hotels to be replaced with specially designed shelters by the end of 2021. Detailed information about the structure, mission and number of available RIS operation units at the time this research was conducted, are provided in Chapter 3. At the time of publication, the applicable law on reception and identification procedures, namely Act 4636 of 2019, as amended by Act 4686 of 2020, remained unaffected by Act 4939 of 2022, as amended by Act 4960 of 2022 –​see disclaimer. 133

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Ergo, even if detention cannot be avoided, it would be acknowledged on a policy level that this process falls within the scope of Art. 12(2) CRC, so that unaccompanied children would be given the opportunity to express themselves in a free manner and question detention accordingly. This way, the correct application of the right to be heard would be promoted not only in the institutional and procedural asylum and migration setting, where narratives of minors end up in official files, but also in the context of academia, where the ‘voice of the child’ is transformed in a way that is presentable to the outside world (Papadopoulos and Van Buggenhout, 2020 p 16). This study’s findings would have never been reached, if it were not for the methodological approach that was applied. In detail, it was IPA that allowed the author to ‘shed light on the existing nomothetic research’ (Smith et al, 2009, p 38) and indisputably confirm that phenomenological analysis can be implemented in future projects that focus on the wider context of migration studies and children’s rights. Moreover, the research results demonstrated that the use of interpretative phenomenology can serve professional, institutional and practical purposes so that the rights of unaccompanied children can be safeguarded not only during reception processes but throughout the asylum procedure. Therefore, by facilitating participants towards having their voices heard, this qualitative study laid the foundation for host countries to use interpretative phenomenology in order to examine the current gaps in their migration policies and adjust them in a proper manner. The latter will have a positive impact on decisions being taken in favour of unaccompanied children, as it will carve the path towards carefully reconstructed and more advanced frameworks. Hence, the ‘best interests of the child’ principle will be protected and promoted in every procedure that follows the irregular entry of unaccompanied children in host countries, including but not restricted to detention processes. However, in the case of Greece and even despite the most recent amendments in the law, the country is still expected to ensure on a policy level that Art. 3 CRC is ultimately put into actual practice instead of simply remaining a mere de jure doctrine (Galante, 2014, p 771). This means that until a comprehensive national plan is introduced, custody of a protective character will inevitably be superseded by detention and characterised by squalid living conditions, coupled with limited integration prospects for unaccompanied children. Hopefully, this study’s findings will be viewed as the initial step towards creating a safe environment in the context of migration, where the right to be heard will be implemented properly and in a way that safeguards the rights of minors on the migratory pathway. As a result, the ‘voice of the child’ will no longer be ignored. Instead, it will help academics and practitioners to explore in depth the ways in which unaccompanied children experience 134

Reaching a Conclusion

reception procedures upon irregular entry into host countries and further examine the humanitarian aspects and the tension between human rights and migration policing. After all, the criminalisation of unaccompanied migrant minors through detention processes can only end via the correct and accurate application of the law. Under this premise, host countries, including Greece, will be eventually able to inaugurate a new, more protective and certainly more child-​ friendly era in the international migration setting in favour of unaccompanied children seeking safety far from their countries of origin.

135

References Aas, K.F. (2011) ‘Crimmigrant bodies and bona fide travelers: Surveillance, citizenship and governance’, Theoretical Criminology, 15(3): 331–​46. Aas, K.F. (2014) ‘Bordered penality: Precarious membership and abnormal justice’, Punishment and Society, 16(5): 520–​41. Annells, M. (1996) ‘Hermeneutic phenomenology: Philosophical perspectives and current use in nursing research’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23(4): 705–​13. Asbury, J. (1995) ‘Overview of focus group research’, Qualitative Health Research, 5(4): 414–​20. Ashworth, A. and Zedner, L. (2014) Preventive Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Back, C., Gustafsson, P.A., Larsson, I. and Berterö, C. (2011) ‘Managing the legal proceedings: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of sexually abused children’s experience with the legal process’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(1): 50–​7. Bäckström, B. and Sundin, K. (2007) ‘The meaning of being a middle-​aged relative of a person who has suffered a stroke, 1 month after discharge from a rehabilitation clinic’, Nursing Inquiry, 14(3): 243–​54. Baillie, C., Smith, J.A., Hewison, J. and Mason, G. (2000) ‘Ultrasound screening for chromosomal abnormality: Women’s reactions to false positive results’, British Journal of Health Psychology, 5(4): 377–​94. Bainham, A. (2013) Children: The Modern Law (4th edn), London: Family Law. Barbour, R.S. (2014) Introducing Qualitative Research: A Student Guide to the Craft of Doing Qualitative Research, London: SAGE. Barbour, R.S. and Kitzinger, J. (eds) (1999) Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice, London: SAGE. Barkway, P. (2001) ‘Michael Crotty and nursing phenomenology: Criticism or critique?’, Nursing Inquiry, 8(3): 191–​5. Bauwens, T., Kennis, P. and Bauwens, A. (2013) ‘Paradigms: Waving the flag or flagging the wave?’, in K. Beyens, J. Christiaens, B. Claes, S. De Ridder, H. Tournel and H. Turbex (eds) The Pains of Doing Criminological Research, Brussels: VUB Press, pp 23–​37. Beyea, S. and Nicoll, L. (2000) ‘Learn more using focus groups’, AORN Journal, 71(4): 897–​900. 136

References

Bhabha, J. (2001) ‘Minors or aliens: Inconsistent state intervention and separated child asylum-​seekers’, European Journal of Migration and Law, 3(3–​4): 283–​314. Bhabha, J. (2014) Child Migration and Human Rights in a Global Age, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bhabha, J. and Young, W. (1999) ‘Not adults in miniature: Unaccompanied child asylum seekers and the new U.S. guidelines’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 11(1): 84–​125. Bhatia, M. (2015) ‘Turning asylum seekers into “dangerous criminals”: Experiences of the criminal justice system of those seeking sanctuary’, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4(3): 97–​111. Bierwirth, C. (2005) ‘The protection of refugee and asylum-​seeking children: The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the work of the Committee on the Rights of the Child’, Refugee Survey Quarterly, 24(2): 98–​124. Biggerstaff , D.L. and Thompson, A.R. (2008) ‘Inter pretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): A qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(3): 214–​24. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research, New York: SAGE. Bosworth, M. (2018) ‘Affect and authority in immigration detention’, Punishment & Society, 21(5): 542–​59. Bosworth, M. (2019) ‘Immigration detention, punishment and the transformation of justice’, Social & Legal Studies, 28(1): 81–​99. Bosworth, M. and Vannier, M. (2019) ‘Blurred lines: Detaining asylum seekers in Britain and France’, Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 53–​68. Bosworth, M., Fili, A. and Pickering, S. (2018a) ‘Women and border policing at the edges of Europe’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(13): 2182–​96. Bosworth, M., Franko, K. and Pickering, S. (2018b) ‘Punishment, globalisation and migration control: “Get them the hell out of here” ’, Punishment & Society, 20(1): 34–​53. Bourbeau, P. (2019) ‘Detention and immigration: Practices, crimmigration, and norms’, Migration Studies, 7(1): 83–​99. Bowling, B. (2013) ‘The borders of punishment: Towards a criminology of mobility’, in K.F. Aas and M. Bosworth (eds) Migration and Punishment: Citizenship, Crime Control and Social Exclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 291–​306. Bowling, B. and Westenra, S. (2018) ‘A really hostile environment: Adiaphorisation, global policing and the crimmigration control system’, Theoretical Criminology, 24(2): 163–​83. Bradbury Jones, C.B., Sambrook, S. and Irvine, F. (2009) ‘The phenomenological focus group: An oxymoron?’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(3): 663–​71. 137

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Bramley, N. and Eatough, V. (2005) ‘The experience of living with Parkinson’s disease: An interpretative phenomenological analysis case study’, Psychology & Health, 20(2): 223–​35. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–​101. Brocki, M.J. and Wearden, J.A. (2006) ‘A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology’, Psychology & Health, 21(1): 87–​108. Buchanan, A. and Kallinikaki, T. (2020) ‘Meeting the needs of unaccompanied children in Greece’, International Social Work, 63(2): 206–​19. Bullis, R.K. (1991) ‘The Convention on the Rights of the Child: A young legal regime for the world’s youngest citizens’, Child and Adolescent Social Work, 8(3): 239–​51. Carradice, A., Shankland, M.C. and Beail, N. (2002) ‘A qualitative study of the theoretical models used by UK mental health nurses to guide their assessments with family caregivers of people with dementia’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39(1): 17–​26. Chapman, E. and Smith, J.A. (2002) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis and the new genetics’, Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2): 125–​30. Clare, L. (2003) ‘Managing threats to self: Awareness in early stage Alzheimer’s disease’, Social Science and Medicine, 57(6): 1017–​29. Clavering, E. and McLaughlin, J. (2010) ‘Children’s participation in health research: From objects to agents?’, Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(5): 603–​11. Cohen, N.Z. and Omery, A. (1994) ‘Schools of phenomenology: Implications for research’, in J.M. Morse (ed) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 136–​56. Cohen, P.C. (1989) ‘Introductory note to United Nations: Convention on the Rights of the Child’, International Legal Materials, 28(6): 1448–​76. Cohen, P.C. and Davidson H.A. (eds) (1990) Children’s Rights in America: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law. American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law and Defence for Children International - USA. Collins, K. and Nicolson, P. (2002) ‘The meaning of “satisfaction” for people with dermatological problems: Reassessing approaches to qualitative health psychology research’, Journal of Health Psychology, 7(5): 615–​29. Conroy, S.A. (2003) ‘A pathway for interpretive phenomenology’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3): 1–​43. Cote-​Arsenault, D. and Morrison-​Beedy, D. (2001) ‘Women’s voices reflecting changed expectations for pregnancy after perinatal loss’, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3): 239–​44.

138

References

De Bondt, W. (2019) ‘De rechtspositie van niet-​begeleide minderjarige vreemdelingen in België: naar een stapsgewijs erkennen van diens bekwaamheid en het breder invullen van het overwegen van diens belang’, in E. Desmet, J. Verhellen and S. Brouckaert (eds) Rechten van niet-​begeleide minderjarige vreemdelingen in België, Brugge: Die Keure, pp 131–​57. De Bruycker, P. (ed), Bloomfield, A., Tsourdi, E. and Pétin, J. (2015) ‘Alternatives to immigration and asylum detention in the EU: Time for implementation’, Odysseus –​ Academic Network for Legal Studies on Immigration. Available from www.refwo​rld.org/​docid/​54f481​094.html [Accessed 14 November 2021]. De Sanctis, V., Soliman, A.T., Soliman, N.A., Elalaily, R., Di Maio, S., Bedair and Elsaid, E.M.A. et al (2016) ‘Pros and cons for the medical age assessments in unaccompanied minors: A mini-​review’, Acta Biomed, 87(2): 121–​31. De Visser, R. and Smith, J.A. (2006) ‘Mister in-​between: A case study of masculine identity and health-​related behaviour’, Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5): 685–​95. Del Gaudio, E. and Phillips, S. (2018) ‘Detention of child asylum seekers in the pursuit of state interests: A comparison of the Australian and EU approaches’, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 36(1): 1–​18. Derluyn, I. and Broekaert, E. (2008) ‘Unaccompanied refugee children and adolescents: The glaring contrast between a legal and a psychological perspective’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31(4): 319–​30. Derluyn, I. and Vervliet, M. (2012) ‘The wellbeing of unaccompanied refugee minors’, in D. Ingleby, A. Krasnik, V. Lorant and O. Razum (eds) Health Inequalities and Risk Factors among Migrants and Ethnic Minorities, Antwerp: Garant, pp 95–​109. Detrick, S. (1999) A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Di Molfetta, E. and Brouwer, J. (2019) ‘Unravelling the “crimmigration knot”: Penal subjectivities, punishment and the censure machine’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(3): 302–​18. Dores, A.P. (2013) ‘The spirit of crimmigration’, in M. Guia, M. Van der Woude and J. Van der Leun (eds) Social Control and Justice: Crimmigration in the Age of Fear, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, pp 143–​57. Dowling, M. (2007) ‘From Husserl to Van Manen: A review of different phenomenological approaches’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44(1): 131–​42. Duggleby, W. (2005) ‘What about focus group interaction data?’, Qualitative Health Research, 15(6): 832–​40. Dunne, E.A. and Quayle, E. (2001) ‘The impact of iatrogenically acquired Hepatitis C infection on the well-​being and relationships of a group of Irish women’, Journal of Health Psychology, 6(6): 679–​92. 139

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Earle, E.A., Davies, H., Greenfield, D., Ross, R. and Eiser, C. (2005) ‘Follow-​up care for childhood cancer survivors: A focus group analysis’, European Journal of Cancer, 41(18): 2882–​6. Eatough, V. and Smith, J.A. (2008) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in C. Willig and W. Stainton-​Rogers (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 179–​94. Eatough, V. and Smith, J.A. (2017) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in C. Willig and W. Stainton-​Rogers (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Psychology (2nd edn), Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 193–​211. Eatough, V., Smith, J. and Shaw, R. (2008) ‘Women, anger, and aggression: An interpretative phenomenological analysis’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12): 1767–​99. Edwards, R. (1998) ‘A critical examination of the use of interpreters in the qualitative research process’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24(1): 197–​208. Elliott, R., Fischer, C.T. and Rennie, D.L. (1999) ‘Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3): 215–​29. Fielding, N. (1994) ‘Varieties of research interviews’, Nurse Researcher, 1(3): 4–​13. Fili, A. and Xythali, V. (2017) ‘The continuum of neglect: Unaccompanied minors in Greece’, Social Work and Society International Online Journal, 15(2): 1–​14. Finch, J. (1987) ‘Research note: The vignette technique in survey research’, Sociology, 21(1): 105–​14. Finlay, L. (2008) ‘A dance between the reduction and reflexivity: Explicating the phenomenological psychological attitude’, Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 39(1): 1–​32. Finlay, L. and Ballinger, C. (2006) ‘Glossary’, in L. Finlay and C. Ballinger (eds) Qualitative Research for Allied Health Professionals: Challenging Choices, Chichester: Whurr Publishers, pp 257–​65. Flanagan, C. (2003) ‘Trust, identity, and civic hope’, Applied Developmental Science, 7(3): 165–​71. Flowers, P., Hart, G. and Marriott, C. (1999) ‘Constructing sexual health: Gay men and “risk” in the context of a public sex environment’, Journal of Health Psychology, 4(4): 483–​95. Fortin, J. (2003) Children’s Rights and the Developing Law (2nd edn), London: LexisNexis. Freeman, K., O’Dell, C. and Meola, C. (2001) ‘Focus group methodology for patients, parents, and siblings’, Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 18(6): 276–​86. Freeman, M. (2007) ‘Why it remains important to take children’s rights seriously’, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15(5): 5–​23. Freeman, T. (2006) ‘“Best practice” in focus group research: Making sense of different views’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5): 491–​7. 140

References

Gadamer, H.G. (2004) Truth and Method (2nd edn), London: Continuum. Galante, V. (2014) ‘Greece’s not-​so-​warm welcome to unaccompanied minors: Reforming EU law to prevent the illegal treatment of migrant children in Greece’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 39(2): 745–​91. Gates, B. and Waight, M. (2007) ‘Reflections on conducting focus groups with people with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical issues’, Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(2): 111–​26. Georgiev, V. (2010) ‘Towards a common European border security policy’, European Security, 19(2): 255–​74. Giannopoulou, C. and Gill, N. (2019) ‘Asylum procedures in Greece: The case of unaccompanied asylum-​seeking minors’, in N. Gill and A. Good (eds) Asylum Determination in Europe, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 109–​30. Gifford, S.M., Bakopanos, C., Kaplan, I. and Correa-​Velez, I. (2007) ‘Meaning or measurement? Researching the social contexts of health and settlement among newly-​arrived refugee youth in Melbourne, Australia’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(3): 414–​40. Giorgi, A. (1989) ‘Some theoretical and practical issues regarding the psychological phenomenological method’, Saybrook Review, 7(2): 71–​85. Giorgi, A. (1997) ‘The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure’, Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2): 235–​60. Giorgi, A. and Giorgi, B. (2003) ‘Phenomenology’, in J.A. Smith (ed) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, London: SAGE, pp 25–​50. Githaiga, J.N. (2014) ‘Methodological considerations in utilisation of focus groups in an IPA study of bereaved parental cancer caregivers in Nairobi’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(4): 400–​19. Goldson, B. and Kilkelly, U. (2013) ‘International human rights standards and child imprisonment: Potentialities and limitations’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21(2): 345–​71. Goldson, B. and Muncie, J. (eds) (2009) Youth Crime and Juvenile Justice: Children’s Rights and State Responsibilities, London: SAGE. Goldson, B. and Muncie, J. (2012) ‘Towards a global “child friendly” juvenile justice?’, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 40(1): 47–​64. Gomien, D. (1989) ‘Whose right (and whose duty) is it? An analysis of the substance and implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child’, New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, 7(1): 161–​74. Goodman, J.H. (2004) ‘Coping with trauma and hardship among unaccompanied refugee youth from Sudan’, Qualitative Health Research, 14(9): 1177–​96. Hammarberg, T. (1990) ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child –​ and how to make it work’, Human Rights Quarterly, 12(1): 97–​105.

141

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Hammarberg, T. (2009) Children and Juvenile Justice: Proposals for Improvements, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Available from https://www.refworld.org/docid/4a3f7ecf2.html [Accessed 30 October 2021]. Hancilova, B. and Knauder, B. (2011) ‘Unaccompanied minor asylum-​ seekers: Overview of protection, assistance and promising practices’, IOM, December. Available from http://infomie.net/IMG/pdf/Unaccompanied_ Minors_Asylum-seekers_Overview_of_Protection_Assistance_and_ Promising_Practices.pdf [Accessed 29 November 2021]. Harper, D. (2008) ‘Clinical psychology’, in C. Willig and W. Stainton-Rogers (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 430–54. Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time, Oxford: Blackwell. Herbots, K. and Put, J. (2015) ‘The participation disc: A conceptual analysis of a child’s right to participation’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23(1): 154–​88. Herlihy, J., Jobson, L. and Turner, S. (2012) ‘Just tell us what happened to you: Autobiographical memory and seeking asylum’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5): 661–​76. Hodgkin, R. and Newell, P. (2007) Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (3rd edn), New York: UNICEF. Hunleth, J. (2011) ‘Beyond on or with: Questioning power dynamics and knowledge production in “child-​oriented” research methodology’, Childhood, 18(1): 81–​93. Husserl, E. (1983) Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, First Book: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Hydén, L.C. and Bülow, P.H. (2003) ‘Who’s talking: Drawing conclusions from focus groups –​some methodological considerations’, Social Research Methodology, 6(4): 305–​21. Jacobson, K. and Landau, L. (2003) ‘Researching refugees: Some methodological and ethical considerations in social science and forced migration’, UNHCR Evaluation and Policy Unit. Available from www.refwo​ rld.org/​docid/​4ff2b3​6f2.html [Accessed 6 October 2021]. James, A. (2007) ‘Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials’, American Anthropologist, 109(2): 261–​72. Jasper, M. (1996) ‘The first year as a staff nurse: The experiences of a first cohort of project 2000 nurses in demonstration district’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(4): 779–​90. Johnson, A.T. (1989) ‘Remarks, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, American Society International Law, Proceedings of the 83rd Annual Meeting, pp 166–72. Available from www.jstor.org/​sta​ble/​25658​ 478 [Accessed 30 October 2021]. 142

References

Jupp, M. (1990) ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: An opportunity for advocates’, Human Rights Quarterly, 12(1): 130–​6. Kaptein, A.A. (2011) ‘Pick up the pieces and go home: On the demise of health psychology’, Health Psychology Review, 5(1): 39–​47. Keller, A.S., Rosenfeld, B., Trinh-​Shevrin, C., Meserve, C., Sachs, E., Leviss, J.A. et al (2003) ‘Mental health of detained asylum seekers’, The Lancet, 362(9397): 1721–​3. Kemp, T. (2019) ‘Solidarity in spaces of “care and custody”: The hospitality politics of immigration detention visiting’, Theoretical Criminology, 25(2): 249–​67. Kennedy, N. (2014) ‘An interpretative phenomenological analysis of prisoners’ experience of riotous behaviour in an adult male prison’, Journal of Forensic Practice, 16(3): 203–​15. Kilkelly, U. (2008) ‘Youth justice and children’s rights: Measuring compliance with international standards’, Youth Justice, 8(3): 187–​92. Kitzinger, J. (1995) ‘Introducing focus groups’, British Medical Journal, 311: 299–​302. Koch, T. (1996) ‘Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: Philosophy, rigour and representation’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(1): 174–​84. Kohli, R.K.S. (2006) ‘The sound of silence: Listening to what unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children say and do not say’, The British Journal of Social Work, 36(5): 707–​21. Kohli, R.K.S. (2007) Social Work with Unaccompanied Asylum-​seeking Children, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Krappmann, L. (2010) ‘The weight of the child’s view (Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child)’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18(4): 501–​13. Krueger, R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2015) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (5th edn), London: SAGE. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Lambert, S.D. and Loiselle, C.G. (2008) ‘Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2): 228–​37. Lansdown, G. (2005) The Evolving Capacities of the Child, London: UNICEF Research Centre. Lansdown, G. (2016) ‘Best interests of the child and the right to be heard’, in M. Sormunen (ed) The Best Interests of the Child: A Dialogue between Theory and Practice, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp 31–​5. Larkin, M., Eatough, V. and Osborn, M. (2011) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis and embodied, active, situated cognition’, Theory & Psychology, 21(3): 318–​37. Laverty, S. (2003) ‘Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3): 21–35. 143

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Legomsky, S.H. (2007) ‘The new path of immigration law: Asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 64(2): 469–​528. Lelliott, J. (2019) ‘Children’s rights and crimmigration controls: Examining Australia’s treatment of unaccompanied minors’, in P. Billings (ed) Crimmigration in Australia, Singapore: Springer, pp 275–​303. Liefaard, T. (2020) ‘Children on the move are children in the first place’, in M. Klaassen, S. Rap, P. Rodrigues and T. Liefaard (eds) Safeguarding Children’s Rights in Immigration Law, Cambridge: Intersentia, pp v–​xi. Loiselle, C.G., Profetto-​McGrath, J., Polit, D.F. and Beck, C. (2007) Polit and Beck Canadian Essentials of Nursing Research (2nd edn), Philadelphia: Lippincot Williams & Wilkins. Love, B., Vetere, A. and Davis, P. (2020) ‘Should Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) be used with focus groups? Navigating the bumpy road of “iterative loops,” idiographic journeys, and “phenomenological bridges”’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19(1): 1–​17. Lundy, L. (2007) ‘Voice is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, British Educational Research Journal, 33(6): 927–​42. Lundy, L. and McEvoy, L. (2012) ‘Children’s rights and research processes: Assisting children to (in)formed views’, Childhood, 19(1): 129–​44. Lundy, L., McEvoy, L. and Byrne, B. (2011) ‘Working with young children as co-​researchers: An approach informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, Early Education & Development, 22(5): 714–​36. Lundy, L., Kilkelly, U. and Byrne, B. (2013) ‘Incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in law: A comparative review’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21(3): 442–​63. Luthar, S.S. and Cicchetti, D. (2000) ‘The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies’, Development and Psychopathology, 12(4): 857–​85. Matua, G.A. and Van Der Wal, D.M. (2015) ‘Differentiating between descriptive and interpretative phenomenological research approaches’, Nurse Researcher, 22(6): 22–​7. Maynard, E., Pycroft, A. and Spiers, J. (2019) ‘They say “yes, I’m doing it … and I’m fine”: The lived experience of supporting teenagers who misuse drugs’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 35(2): 143–​57. Mbembe, A. (2019) Necropolitics, Durham, NC: Duke University Press. McCafferty, P. (2017) ‘Implementing Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in child protection decision-​ making: A critical analysis of the challenges and opportunities for social work’, Child Care in Practice, 23(4): 327–​41. McLafferty, I. (2004) ‘Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2): 187–​94. 144

References

McSweeney, A.K. (1993) ‘The potential for enforcement of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: The need to improve the information base’, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 16(2): 467–​96. Melton, G.B. (2005) ‘Building humane communities respectful of children: The significance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child’, American Psychologist, 60(8): 918–​26. Menjívar, C. and Per reira, K.M. (2019) ‘Undocumented and unaccompanied: Children of migration in the European Union and the United States’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(2): 197–​217. Miqdadi, D. (2015) ‘It’s tough but it’s worth it: Psychosocial counsellors’ experience of working with Iraqi refugees in Jordan: An interpretative phenomenological analysis’, unpublished doctoral thesis, City University London. Available from http://​ope​nacc​ess.city.ac.uk/​12477/​ [Accessed 15 December 2021]. Mitchell, C.R. (2013) ‘Reflections on the UNCRC’s future from a transdisciplinary bricoleur’, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21(3): 510–​22. Moran, D. (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology, London: Routledge. Morgan, D.L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd edn), Newbury Park: SAGE. Morgan, D.L. and Krueger R.A. (1993) ‘When to use focus groups and why’, in D.L. Morgan (ed) Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Newbury Park: Sage, pp 3–19. Morrow, V. and Richards, M. (1996) ‘The ethics of social research with children: An overview’, Children and Society, 10(2): 90–​105. Mountz, A., Coddington, K., Lloyd, J. and Catania, R.T. (2013) ‘Conceptualizing detention: Mobility, containment, bordering and exclusion’, Progress in Human Geography, 37(4): 522–​41. Moustakas, C. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Muncie, J. (2008) ‘The “punitive turn” in juvenile justice: Cultures of control and rights compliance in western Europe and the USA’, The National Association for Youth Justice, 8(2): 107–​21. Muncie, J. (2013) ‘International juvenile (in)justice: Penal severity and rights compliance’, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2(2): 43–​62. Naskou‑Perraki, P. (2012) ‘The implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in Greece’, Revista de Asistenta Sociala, 11(2): 39–​50.

145

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Naskou‑Perraki, P., Chrysogonos, K. and Anthopoulos, C. (2002) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Its Implementation in the National Legal Order, Article by Article Interpretation, Athens‑Komotini: Ant. N. Sakkoulas (in Greek). Nunkoosing, K. (2005) ‘The problems with interviews’, Qualitative Health Research, 15(5): 698–​706. Oh, S.A. (2012) ‘Photofriend: Creating visual ethnography with refugee children’, Area, 44(3): 282–​8. Osborn, M. and Smith, J.A. (1998) ‘The personal experience of chronic benign lower back pain: An interpretative phenomenological analysis’, British Journal of Health Psychology, 3(1): 65–​83. Paley, J. (1997) ‘Husserl, phenomenology and nursing’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(1): 187–​93. Palmer, M., Larkin, M., De Visser, R. and Fadden, G. (2010) ‘Developing an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach to focus group data’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(2): 99–​121. Papademetriou, T. (2007) ‘Children’s rights’, The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal, pp 96–​109. Available from https://​tile.loc.gov/​stor​age-​ servi​ces/​serv​ice/​ll/​llg​lrd/​201​8298​966/​201​8298​966.pdf [Accessed 30 November 2021]. Papadopoulos, I. (2020) ‘How protective is custody for unaccompanied minors in Greece? Protecting children’s rights within detention’, in M. Klaassen, S. Rap, P. Rodrigues and T. Liefaard (eds) Safeguarding Children’s Rights in Immigration Law, Cambridge: Intersentia, pp 179–​94. Papadopoulos, I. (2021a) ‘Examining the status of detained migrant unaccompanied minors in the Greek context: Crossing the threshold of a new era?’, Border Criminologies, University of Oxford, Faculty of Law, [blog] 3 June. Available from www.law.ox.ac.uk/​resea​rch-​subj​ect-​gro​ups/​cen​tre-​ crimi​ nolo ​ gy/c​ entre​ bord​ er-c​ rimino ​ logi​ es/b​ log/​2021/​06/​examin​ing-​sta​tus [Accessed 30 October 2021]. Papadopoulos, I. (2021b) ‘Case note 2021/​6 –​The European Committee of Social Rights: International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece –​placing protective custody for unaccompanied children at the forefront’, Leiden Children’s Rights Observatory, [online]. Available from www. chi​ldre​nsri​ghts​obse​r vat​ory.nl/​case-​notes/​casen​ote2​021-​6 [Accessed 12 November 2021]. Papadopoulos, I. and Pycroft, A. (2019) ‘Detention as protective custody for Unaccompanied Migrant Minors: A social and legal policy overview of the Greek framework on conditions of detention, under the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’, in E.M. Guzik-​ Makaruk and E.W. Pływaczewski (eds) Current Problems of the Penal Law and Criminology, Warsaw: C.H. Beck, pp 581–​97. 146

References

Papadopoulos, I. and Van Buggenhout, M. (2020) ‘Giving voice to migrant children during reception and asylum procedures: Illustrations on the implementation of Art. 12 CRC in Greece and Belgium’, Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, 18(2): 1–​23. Papadopoulos, R.K. (ed) (2002) Therapeutic Care for Refugees, No Place like Home, London: Karnac. Parkes, A. (2013) Children and International Human Rights Law: The Right of the Child to be Heard, London: Routledge. Parkinson, P. and Cashmore, J. (2008) The Voice of a Child in Family Law Disputes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillips, E., Montague, J. and Archer, S. (2016) ‘Worlds within worlds: A strategy for using interpretative phenomenological analysis with focus groups’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(4): 289–​302. Pietkiewicz, I. and Smith, J.A. (2014) ‘A practical guide to using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in qualitative research psychology’, Czasopismo Psychologiczne –​Psychological Journal, 20(1): 7–​14. Pinheiro, P.S. (2006) World Report on Violence against Children, Geneva: United Nations. Available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/587334 [Accessed 30 October 2021]. Pisani, M. (2016) ‘“Illegal bodies” on the move: A critical look at forced migration towards social justice for young asylum-​seekers’, in European Union and Council of Europe (ed) Perspectives on Youth: Healthy Europe: Confidence and Uncertainty for Young People in Contemporary Europe, pp 83–​98. Available from www.acade​mia.edu/​23872​352/​_I​ llegal_​bodies_​ on_t​ he_m ​ ove_​A_​critical_​look_​at_​forced_​migration_​towards_​soci​al_​ju ​ sti​ ce_​f​or_​y​oung​_​asy​lum-​seek​ers [Accessed 30 August 2021]. Pisani, M. (2018) ‘Illegal young bodies and the failings of liberal democracy: Some reflections on the European Union’s “refugee crisis” and its implications for juvenile justice’, in B. Goldson (ed) Juvenile Justice in Europe: Past, Present and Future, London: Routledge, pp 162–​85. Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E. and Hendry, C. (2011) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis: A discussion and critique’, Nurse Researcher, 18(3): 20–​4. Pycroft, A., Wallis, A., Bigg, J. and Webster, G. (2015) ‘Participation, engagement and change: A study of the experiences of service users of the unified adolescent team’, The British Journal of Social Work, 45(2): 422–​39. Rap, S. (2019) ‘The right to effective participation of refugee and migrant children: A critical children’s rights perspective’, Working Paper Series W-​ 2019/​3, United Nations University, Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies. Available from http://​cris.unu.edu/​r ight-​effect​ive-​ partici​ pati​ on-r​ efu​gee-​and-​migr​ant-​child​ren-​criti​cal-​child​ren’s-​r ig​hts-​pers​ pect​ive [Accessed 10 November 2021].

147

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Ray, M.A. (1994) ‘The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic and methodologic concerns’, in J.M. Morse (ed) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 117–​33. Reicher, S. (2000) ‘Against methodolatry: Some comments on Elliott, Fischer and Rennie’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(1): 1–​6. Reid, K., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2005) ‘Exploring lived experience’, The Psychologist, 18(1): 20–​3. Robinson, N. (1999) ‘The use of focus group methodology –​with selected examples from sexual health research’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(4): 905–​13. Rose, N. (1989) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, London: Routledge. Rousseau, C., Said, T.M., Gagne, M.J. and Bibeau, G. (1998) ‘Resilience in unaccompanied minors from the north of Somalia’, Psychoanalytic Review, 85(4): 615–​37. Sandelowski, M. (2002) ‘Re-​embodying qualitative inquiry’, Qualitative Health Research, 12(1): 104–​15. Schweitzer, R. and Steel, Z. (2008) ‘Researching refugees: Methodological and ethical considerations’, in P. Liamputtong (ed) Doing Cross-​Cultural Research: Ethical and Methodological Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp 87–​101. Shinebourne, P. (2011) ‘The theoretical underpinnings of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)’, Existential Analysis, 22(1): 16–​31. Sim, J. (1998) ‘Collecting and analysing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2): 345–​52. Simester, A.P. and Von Hirsch, A. (2011) Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalisation, Portland: Hart Publishing. Skårdalsmo Bjørgo, E.M. and Jensen, T.K. (2015) ‘Unaccompanied refugee minors’ early life narratives of physical abuse from caregivers and teachers in their home countries’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 48(1): 148–​59. Skordas, A. and Sitaropoulos, N. (2004) ‘Why Greece is not a safe host country for refugees’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 16(1): 25–​52. Skourteli, C.M. and Apostolopoulou, A. (2015) ‘An interpretative phenomenological analysis into counselling psychologists’ relationship with research: Motives, facilitators and barriers –​a contextual perspective’, Counselling Psychology Review, 30(4): 16–​33. Smith, J.A. (1996) ‘Beyond the divide between cognition and discourse: Using interpretative phenomenological analysis in health psychology’, Psychology and Health, 11(2): 261–​71. Smith, J.A. (2004) ‘Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(1): 39–​54. Smith, J.A. (2007) ‘Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health & Well-​Being, 2(1): 3–​11. 148

References

Smith, J.A. (2011) ‘Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis’, Health Psychology Review, 5(1): 9–​27. Smith, J.A. and Eatough, V. (2006) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in G. Breakwell, S.M. Hammond, C. Fife-​Schaw and J.A. Smith (eds) Research Methods in Psychology, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 322–​41. Smith, J.A. and Osborn, M. (2003) ‘Interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in J.A. Smith (ed) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp 51–​80. Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Osborn, M. (1997) ‘Interpretative phenomeno­ logical analysis and the psychology of health and illness’, in L. Yardley (ed) Material Discourses of Health and Illness, London: Routledge, pp 68–​91. Smith, J.A., Jarman, M. and Osborn, M. (1999) ‘Doing interpretative phenomenological analysis’, in M. Murray and K. Chamberlain (eds) Qualitative Health Psychology, London: SAGE, pp 218–​40. Smith, J.A., Michie, S., Stephenson, M. and Quarrell, O. (2002) ‘Risk perception and decision making in candidates for genetic testing in Huntingdon’s disease: An interpretative phenomenological analysis’, Journal of Health Psychology, 7(2): 131–​44. Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2009) Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research, London: SAGE. Smyth, C.M. (2019) ‘Towards a complete prohibition on the immigration detention of children’, Human Rights Law Review, 19(1): 1–​36. Soliman, F. (2019) ‘States of exception, human rights, and social harm: Towards a border zemiology’, Theoretical Criminology, 25(2): 228–​48. Sorrell, J.M. and Redmond, G.M. (1995) ‘Interviews in qualitative nursing research: Differing approaches for ethnographic and phenomenological studies’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(6): 1117–​22. Spyrou, S. (2011) ‘The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation’, Childhood, 18(2): 151–​65. Stalford, H.E. (2018) ‘David and Goliath: Due weight, the state and determining unaccompanied children’s fate’, Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law, 32(3): 258–​83. Sternheim, L., Konstantellou, A., Startup, H. and Schmidt, U. (2011) ‘What does uncertainty mean to women with anorexia nervosa? An interpretative phenomenological analysis’, European Eating Disorders Review, 19(1): 12–​24. Stewart, D.W. and Shamdasani, P.N. (2015) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Streubert, H.J. and Carpenter, D.R. (2011) Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative (5th edn), Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Stumpf, J.P. (2006) ‘The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power’, American University Law Review, 56(2): 367–​419.

149

The Criminalisation of Unaccompanied Migrant Minors

Stumpf, J.P. (2013) ‘Social control and justice: Crimmigration in the age of fear’, in M. Guia, M. Van der Woude and J. Van der Leun (eds) Social Control and Justice: Crimmigration in the Age of Fear, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, pp 7–​16. Sutherland, E. (2014) ‘Listening to the child’s voice in the family setting: From aspiration to reality’, Child & Family Law Quarterly, 26(2): 152–​72. Taylor, C. (2008) ‘Heidegger on language’, in H.L. Dreyfus and M.A. Wrathall (eds) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, pp 433–​67. Thomae, H. (1999) ‘The nomothetic-​idiographic issue: Some roots and recent trends’, International Journal of Group Tensions, 28(1–​2): 187–​215. Thomas, N. (2007) ‘Towards a theory of children’s participation’, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15(2): 199–​218. Thommessen, S.A.O., Thommessen, S., Laghi, F., Cerrone, C., Baiocco, R. and Todd, B.K. (2013) ‘Internalizing and externalizing symptoms among unaccompanied refugee and Italian adolescents’, Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1): 7–​10. Thommessen, S.A.O., Corcoran, P. and Todd, B.K. (2015) ‘Experiences of arriving to Sweden as an unaccompanied asylum-​seeking minor from Afghanistan: An interpretative phenomenological analysis’, Psychology of Violence, 5(4): 374–​83. Todorova, I. (2011) ‘Explorations with interpretative phenomenological analysis in different socio-​cultural contexts’, Health Psychology Review, 5(1): 34–​8. Todres, J. (1999) ‘Emerging limitations on the rights of the child: The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and its early case law’, Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 30: 159–​200. Todres, L. and Wheeler, S. (2001) ‘The complementarity of phenomenology, hermeneutics and existentialism as a philosophical perspective for nursing research’, International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38(1): 1–​8. Tomkins, L. and Eatough, V. (2010) ‘Reflecting on the use of IPA with focus groups: Pitfalls and potentials’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(3): 244–​62. Troller, S. (2008) ‘Left to survive: Systematic failure to protect unaccompanied migrant children in Greece’, Human Rights Watch. Available from www. refwo​rld.org/​docid/​4950a7​382.html [Accessed 10 October 2021]. Van der Leun, J. and Van der Woude, M. (2013) ‘A reflection on crimmigration in the Netherlands’, in M. Guia, M. Van der Woude and J. Van der Leun (eds) Social Control and Justice: Crimmigration in the Age of Fear, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, pp 41–​60. Van der Woude, M.A.H. and Van Berlo, P. (2015) ‘Crimmigration at the internal borders of Europe? Examining the Schengen governance package’, Utrecht Law Review, 11(1): 61–​79.

150

References

Van der Woude, M.A.H., Van der Leun, J.P. and Nijland, J.A. (2014) ‘Crimmigration in the Netherlands’, Law and Social Inquiry, 39(3): 560–​79. Van der Woude, M.A.H., Barker, V. and Van der Leun, J.P. (2017) ‘Crimmigration in Europe’, European Journal of Criminology, 14(1): 3–​6. Van der Zalm, J.E. and Bergum, V. (2000) ‘Hermeneutic-​phenomenology: Providing living knowledge for nursing practice’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(1): 211–​18. Van Eyk, H. and Baum, F. (2003) ‘Evaluating health system change: Using focus groups and a developing discussion paper to compile the “Voices from the field”’, Qualitative Health Research, 13(2): 281–​6. Van Mol, C. and De Valk, H. (2016) ‘Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demographic perspective’, in B. Garcés-​Mascareñas and R. Penninx (eds) Integration Processes and Policies in Europe, Cham: Springer, pp 31–​55. Verhellen, E. (2000) Verdrag inzake de rechten van het kind. Achtergrond, motieven, strategieën, hoofdlijnen, Antwerp: Garant. Vervliet, M., Rousseau, C., Broekaert, E. and Derluyn, I. (2015) ‘Multilayered ethics in research involving unaccompanied refugee minors’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 28(4): 468–​85. Webb, C. and Kevern, J. (2001) ‘Focus groups as a research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33(6): 798–​805. Weber, L. and Bowling, B. (2008) ‘Valiant beggars and global vagabonds: Select, eject, immobilise’, Theoretical Criminology, 12(3): 355–​75. Weber, L. and McCulloch, J. (2018) ‘Penal power and border control: Which thesis? Sovereignty, governmentality, or the pre-​emptive state?’, Punishment and Society, 21(4): 496–​514. Wernesjö, U. (2012) ‘Unaccompanied asylum-​seeking children: Whose perspective?’, Childhood, 19(4): 495–​507. Wilkinson, S. (2004) ‘Focus group research’, in D. Silverman (ed) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, London: SAGE, pp 177–​99. Willig, C. (2008) ‘Discourse analysis’, in J.A. Smith (ed) Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods (3rd edn), London: SAGE, pp 143–​67. Wimpenny, P. and Gass, J. (2000) ‘Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: Is there a difference?’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6): 1485–​92. Zedner, L. (2015) ‘Penal subversions: When is a punishment not punishment, who decides and on what grounds?’, Theoretical Criminology, 20(1): 3–​20. That was it.

151

Index References to figures appear in italic type; those in bold type refer to tables. References to footnotes show both the page number and the note number (34n22). A Aas, K.F.  47 abusive behaviour  79, 99–​105, 109, 111–​13, 121–​2, 129n16 accommodation  33–​4 Act 3386 of 2005  34n22, 35n23 Act 4375 of 2016  17, 17n13, 37n31, 38n32 Act 4554 of 2018  32, 32n15 Act 4636 of 2019  4n14, 35–​6n27, 37n29, 39n34, 40n39, 53n28, 89n12, 112n13 Act 4686 of 2020  40n38, 106n1, 107n4, 123n2 Act 4760 of 2020  132, 132n23 age assessment (determination) processes 88–​9n11, 108–​9 ‘analytic’ process  23n32 Ashworth, A.  46n10 B ‘best interests of the child’ principle  15–​16, 17, 20n26, 41, 45, 49, 55, 134 Beyea, S.  71 Bhabha, J.  6, 20, 51 bordered penality  47 Bosworth, M.  45, 48, 112n14 Bowling, B.  46, 47–​8 bracketing  22n29, 22n30 Buchanan, A.  2 Bullis, R.K.  15 C Committee  see United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (Committee) communication  see right to be heard content analysis  24n33 Convention  see United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Convention) Council Directive 2005/​85/​EC  35n26, 36n28

Council of Europe Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT)  40, 42, 129–​30 CRC  see United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) criminalisation  125, 126, 127, 130 crimmigration  6, 46–​50, 126, 130 custody of a protective character  39, 41, 55, 123n1, 125–​6, 127, 132n22, 134 see also protective custody D De Bruycker, P.  34 descriptive phenomenology  22, 23, 59n5 detention processes  2–​5, 35, 43, 47–​8 detention of unaccompanied children  3–​5, 37–​42, 44–​5, 48–​50 absence of proper services  90–​8 concerns on hygiene matters  76–​85, 107 and crimmigration  6 duration  63, 86–​7 incidents of abusive behaviour  79, 99–​105, 109, 111–​13 practitioners’ insights into  110–​17 problematic detention setting  86–​90, 106–​7, 108–​9 proposed changes to  117–​22 vicious circle of  54 see also Unaccompanied Migrant Minor(s) (UAM) Di Molfetta, E.  47 Directive 2008/​115/​EC  39 Directive 2011/​95/​EU  18n17, 30n7, 39, 53n28, 63n15, 106n1, 123n1 Directive 2013/​33/​EU  29–​30, 39, 108n5 discussion themes, superordinate  75 absence of proper services  90–​8 concerns on hygiene matters  76–​85, 107 incidents of abusive behaviour  79, 99–​105, 109, 111–​13

152

INDEX

problematic detention setting  86–​90, 106–​7, 108–​9 ‘double hermeneutic’ process  8, 25, 25n36, 60, 60n7, 72, 74n2, 124 Dublin Regulation (Regulation No 604/​2013)  18, 63n14 E EKKA (National Centre for Social Solidarity)  33, 33n18 Elliott, R.  25 emotional abuse  102 EU Action Plan on Unaccompanied Minors (2010–​2014)  3–​4 European Committee of Social Rights  32, 130 European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights  15, 15n9 European Council  29 F family contact  92–​3, 97 financial support  91–​2, 93, 109 First Reception Service  37–​8n31 focus group session with professionals  70–​3 absence of proper services  98 concerns on hygiene matters  85 incidents of abusive behaviour  104–​5 and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)  67–​70 professionals’ insights into detention  116–​17 problematic detention setting  86–​7, 90 proposed changes to UAM detention  120–​2 sample  71n24, 72 see also professional focus group session food  91–​2, 91n16, 96–​7 freedom of expression  115, 116–​17 see also right to be heard Freeman, M.  52 future research paths  132–​5 G Gates, B.  71 Georgiev, V.  45 Giorgi, A.  68 Greece  detention processes  37–​42, 43, 45, 48, 53–​5 guardianship framework for unaccompanied children  31–​4 irregular entry into  34–​7, 38 migrants and asylum seekers in  2 safeguarding children  16–​17 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)  16, 49, 131 grounded theory  24n33, 26n38 guardianship framework for unaccompanied children  31–​4

H health issues  see medical treatment Heidegger, M.  7–​8, 21, 22, 25n37, 26, 57, 68, 69 Herbots, K.  20 hermeneutics  8, 22–​3, 23n31, 25, 27n40 see also ‘double hermeneutic’ process Husserl, E.  22, 68 Hydén, L.C.  68 hygiene matters, concerns on  76–​85, 107 I idiography  24n33 immigration-​crime offences  6 see also crimmigration implementing changes  117–​22 insider perspective  23n32 international protection  18n17, 30, 30n7, 35–​6, 63n15 interpretation services  94, 97, 98, 108 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)  7–​8, 21–​8, 57, 59, 67–​70, 124, 134 interpreters  57, 58, 60–​1, 60n8, 76–​7 interview process  56–​60 focus group session with professionals  70–​3 and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)  67–​70 sample  71n24, 72 individual interviews with minors  60–​5 sample  62n13, 64 individual interviews with practitioners  65–​7 sample  65n18, 66 see also practitioner individual interviews; professional focus group session irregular entry  34–​7, 38, 44–​5 J Jasper, M.  71 K Kemp, T.  6 Kohli, R.K.S.  30, 51n21 Krappmann, L.  19, 52 L Lambert, S.D.  69 Lansdown, G.  53 legal aid  40, 93, 97, 118 Lelliott, J.  48 M Mbembe, A.  2n6 McCafferty, P.  54 medical treatment  95–​6, 97–​8, 109 Membership Theory  46, 123n3 Mitchell, C.R.  14–​15 N nanoracism  2, 2n6

153

THE CRIMINALISATION OF UNACCOMPANIED MIGRANT MINORS

National Centre for Social Solidarity (EKKA)  33, 33n18 O overcrowding  80–​2 P Palmer, M.  68 Parkinson, P.  20 PD 113 of 2013  36n28 PD 141 of 1991  38–​9, 132n22, 132n23 PD 220 of 2007  16, 16n12, 112n13 phenomenological reduction  22, 68, 68n21 phenomenology  21–​3, 23n31, 26, 68, 69 descriptive  22, 23, 59n5 interpretative  21–​8; see also Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) physical abuse  100–​4 Pisani, M.  126 practitioner individual interviews  65–​7 absence of proper services  96–​8 concerns on hygiene matters  81–​5 incidents of abusive behaviour  102–​4 practitioners’ insights into detention  110–​16 problematic detention setting  86–​7, 90 proposed changes to UAM detention 117–​18, 119–​20 sample  65n18, 66 practitioners’ insights into detention  110–​17 professional focus group session  70–​3 absence of proper services  98 concerns on hygiene matters  85 incidents of abusive behaviour  104–​5 and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)  67–​70 professionals’ insights into detention  116–​17 problematic detention setting  86–​7, 90 proposed changes to UAM detention  120–​2 sample  71n24, 72 see also focus group session with professionals protective custody  38–​9, 39n33, 48, 111, 132, 132n22 see also custody of a protective character psychological hypothermia  51, 51n21 R Rap, S.  51 Reception and Identification Service (RIS)  37–​8n31 refugees, definition  30–​1n8 Regulation No. 604 of 2013  see Dublin Regulation research project  conclusion  123–​31 discussion themes, superordinate  75

absence of proper services  90–​8 concerns on hygiene matters  76–​85, 107 incidents of abusive behaviour  79, 99–​105, 109, 111–​13 problematic detention setting  86–​90, 106–​7, 108–​9 future research paths  132–​5 interview process  56–​60 focus group session with professionals 70–​3; see also professional focus group sessions individual interviews with minors  60–​5 individual interviews with practitioners  65–​7; see also practitioner individual interviews practitioners’ insights into detention  110–​17 proposed changes to UAM detention  117–​22 recruitment process  56 research aims  57 resilience  51 right to be heard  19–​21, 45n9, 51–​5, 116, 126–​7n12, 126–​8, 131, 133–​4 S safe zones  33, 33–​4n21, 61, 85n9 safety  93, 94 Schweitzer, R.  28 services, absence of  90–​8 Simester, A.P.  46n10 Smith, J.A.  23, 24, 74n1, 110n12 Smyth, C.M.  42 Soliman, F.  47 Special Secretariat for the Protection of Unaccompanied Minors  132, 132n21, 132n23 Stewart, D.W.  68 Stumpf, J.P.  6, 46, 46n11, 47, 123n3 superordinate discussion themes  see discussion themes, superordinate Sutherland, E.  19 T Thomas, N.  20 Tomkins, L.  69 torture  103 Troller, S.  41, 108 trust  10, 61, 61n11, 91 truth  26, 51 U Unaccompanied Migrant Minor(s) (UAM)  criminalisation  125, 126, 127, 130 crimmigration  6, 48, 126 definitions  29–​30 detention processes  3–​5, 37–​42, 44–​5, 48–​50 absence of proper services  90–​8

154

INDEX

concerns on hygiene matters  76–​85, 107 and crimmigration  6 duration  63, 86–​7 incidents of abusive behaviour  79, 99–​105, 109, 111–​13 practitioners’ insights into  110–​17 problematic detention setting  86–​90, 106–​7, 108–​9 proposed changes to  117–​22 vicious circle of  54 guardianship framework  31–​4 individual interviews with minors  60–​5; see also interview process freedom of expression  115, 116–​17; see also right to be heard sample  62n13, 64 Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) with  27–​8 irregular entry  36–​7 right to be heard  19–​21, 45n9, 51–​5, 116, 126–​7n12, 126–​8, 131, 133–​4 understanding detention  110–​17 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (Committee)  ‘best interests of the child’ principle  15–​16 detention processes  3, 41 irregular entry  44–​5 right to be heard  19, 20, 52, 53 violence against children  129n16 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)  1, 7, 13–​19, 131

‘best interests of the child’ principle  109n11 detention  45 practitioners’ familiarity with  66–​7, 114 right to be heard  19–​21, 45n9, 51–​5, 115–​16, 126–​7n12, 126–​8, 131, 133–​4 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Convention)  2–​4, 34 United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)  29, 30n6, 53 United Nations Human Rights Council  44, 94 United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (HRCR)  3, 17, 43 Universal Declaration of Human Rights  1 V Van der Leun, J.  6 verbal abuse  79, 99, 101, 102, 103 Vervliet, M.  31 vignettes  67n20 vulnerability  27, 31, 51, 54 W Webb, C.  68 Wernesjö, U.  48 Z Zedner, L.  4–​5

155