CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF2492270 { width:14.36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE4C86F0B { width:12.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s19A44F7F { width:4.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s92673F68 { width:2.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE0836E8C { width:7.81pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8BF9F9FB { width:7.06pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDEA351A4 { width:7.61pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC2E086EB { width:36.89pt; display:inline-block } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no.   15067/21 G.R.J. against Greece The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3   December 2024 as a Chamber composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President ,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Jolien Schukking,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Darian Pavli,   Andreas Zünd, judges , and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having deliberated, decides as follows: INTRODUCTION 1 .     The application concerns the applicant’s alleged “pushback” from Greece to Türkiye. The applicant relied on Articles   2, 3 and 13 of the Convention. PROCEDURE 2.     The case originated in an application (no.   15067/21) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Afghan national, Mr   G.R.J. (“the applicant”) on 3   March 2021. 3 .     The applicant was born in 2005 and currently lives in Germany. He was represented by Mr   P.J.   Schüller, lawyer, assisted by Ms   S.   Rafi, Ms   N.   Keady-Tabbal and Mr   J-H.   Seelow, lawyers. The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent,   Ms   N.   Marioli, and her delegates Mr   K.   Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor at the State Legal Council, and Mr   D.   Kalogiros, Ms   S.   Trekli and Ms   Z.   Chatzipavlou, Advisers at the State Legal Council . 4 .     The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court, pursuant to Rule   52   §   1 of the Rules of Court. On 2   December 2021 it was communicated to the respondent Government. The Government and the applicant each filed written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case . 5 .     Upon the leave granted by the President of the Chamber, third-party comments were also received from the following entities: the Border Violence Monitoring Network; the AIRE Centre, jointly with the Dutch Council for Refugees and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles; the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, jointly with the European Democratic Lawyers, the Association of Lawyers for Freedom and the Progressive Lawyers’ Association; the Greek Council for Refugees, jointly with the Hellenic League for Human Rights and Humanrights360; and, lastly, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, jointly with PRO   ASYL and Refugee Support Aegean. 6 .     On 14   November 2023 the Chamber decided to hold a hearing in the case. 7 .     On 15   February 2024 the Chamber scheduled the hearing for 4   June 2024 . It sent the parties general questions for the hearing and further asked them to reply to specific questions in writing and to provide additional information before the hearing . 8 .     Upon invitation by the President of the Chamber, the Greek Ombudsman, the National Human Rights Commission and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) submitted observations in reply to the following question: “Has there been a systematic practice of refoulement of foreign nationals by the Greek authorities to Türkiye at land and sea borders?” 9 .     On 8   April 2024 the parties’ replies to the specific questions and the requested additional information were received. 10 .     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 4   June 2024.   There appeared before the Court:   (a)     for the Government   Mr   K.   Georgiadis, Legal Counsellor at the State Legal Council, Mr   D. Kalogiros, Ms   S. Trekli, Ms   Z. Chatzipavlou, Advisers at the State Legal Council;   (b)     for the applicant   Mr   P.J. Schüller, Lawyer, Mr   S. Rafi, Ms     N. Keady-Tabbal, Mr   J. H. Seelow, Advisers.   The Court heard addresses by Mr   P.J. Schüller, Ms   N.   Keady-Tabbal and Mr   S. Rafi, for the applicant, and by Mr   M.   Papamina, Ms   K.   Prountzou and Mr   A.   Konstantinou, for the applicant, and by Mr   D.   Kalogiros and Ms   S.   Trekli, for the Government, as well as their replies to questions from the judges. THE FACTS The applicant’s account 11.     The applicant was a fifteen-year-old, unaccompanied Afghan minor at the material time. He submitted that, fearing persecution by the Taliban, he had left his country in 2018 and had secretly entered Iran, then Türkiye, with a view to reaching Europe and seeking asylum there. 12 .     He left the Turkish coast in the early hours of the morning on 8   September 2020 on board a   rubber dinghy carrying roughly 18   migrants seeking asylum. After approximately two hours and twenty minutes they landed on the Greek island of Samos at around 6.20   a.m., in a remote wooded area, as shown in the photographs and videos provided by him. They contacted the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Aegean Boat Report (“ABR”), which in turn informed the Samos Port Authority of the group’s arrival. Screenshots taken by ABR proved that the call in question had been made. 13 .     Since the other members of the group were families with children who were unable to move about on the steep and unstable terrain, the applicant and another minor, H., left them to seek assistance on foot. They reached a place near telecommunications masts, which they photographed in order to document their arrival in Greece. The applicant took a photograph of H. with the town of Vathy visible in the background and H. photographed him at the same spot. He subsequently lost this photograph of him when his phone was confiscated by the Greek authorities. 14 .     After taking the photographs, the applicant and H. walked to the town of Vathy, where the applicant, seeing tents, realised that this was the island’s refugee camp (Samos Reception and Identification Centre – “the RIC”). They went to the camp, where they asked the residents for food and water and spent the night in a tent with a group of young Afghans. One of the Afghans said that he would call the officials responsible for registering refugees in the camp so that the applicant could be registered as an asylum-seeker the following morning. 15 .     The next morning, on 9   September 2020, the applicant and H. joined the food queue, where the applicant saw two women and a man in United Nations (UN) uniforms. Immediately afterwards the applicant met a relative of H.’s, Z.H., who took them to the showers. At around 9 or 10   a.m. the applicant and H. were approached and given face masks by a person named N., who was the Afghan community representative in the camp. N. was accompanied by two Greek officials, who did not identify themselves but whom the applicant understood to be police officers responsible for registering asylum applications. The applicant and H. told N. that they wished to apply for asylum, to which N., relaying the information given by the officers, replied that, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the police would place them in quarantine before bringing them back to the camp afterwards and that they could not be issued with an asylum-seeker’s card or any other document because the asylum service was closed. 16 .     The Greek officials took the applicant and H. to an office inside the RIC, where they stayed for about an hour. The office resembled a police station and was equipped with television screens and cameras. The officials were wearing dark uniforms and had handcuffs and guns. They asked them what language they spoke and, when the applicant and H. replied “Dari”, they questioned them in that language with the assistance of an interpreter over the telephone. During the conversation, the applicant clearly stated that he intended to apply for asylum and the officials claimed to be the persons responsible for registering asylum-seekers. At the officials’ request, the applicant told them his age and nationality, provided them with details concerning his arrival in Greece, such as the number of people with whom he had landed on Samos, and stated that he did not know why the families that had been travelling with them had not come to the camp. The officials provided the applicant and H. with water and further informed them that they would provide them with food, but never did. The applicant submitted that the officials ought to have been aware his status as an unaccompanied minor and ought to have allowed him to apply for asylum. He further submitted that the officials had told them that they would be taken away to be confined for a few days, after which they would be released. 17 .     The two Greek officials that had been speaking with the applicant and H. then escorted them out of the office and, through an alternative exit, out of the camp, making sure that they were not seen leaving the camp. The applicant alleged that the police station in question, located inside the RIC, was identifiable in a satellite image of the RIC and appended a map to the application from which, in his view, it was clear that at least one alternative route out of the camp was accessible from the police station. 18 .     The officials then walked with the applicant and H. for about 10-15 minutes to a place where a grey vehicle awaited. Two other individuals, who were unknown to the applicant, were waiting at the vehicle, along with a third individual on a motorcycle. With the motorcycle following, they were driven in the grey car to Vathy harbour, where a grey vessel which the applicant understood to be a coastguard ship was waiting. The officials took the applicant and H. aboard the ship, on which there were roughly five Greek officials in dark uniforms. The officials searched the applicant and confiscated his phone and money. They then pushed him forcefully, handcuffed him to H. and ordered him to put his head down and keep still. During these events, they slapped his face. The applicant recalled very large waves while at sea. 19 .     The coastguard ship was headed towards Türkiye when it stopped at sea. One of the officials inflated a rubber raft while another removed their handcuffs. The officials then forced the applicant and H. into the raft and sailed away, leaving them there. The raft, which was not equipped with a motor or any means of steering, drifted for around 35   minutes or more. The applicant recalled that the raft leaked. They were soaked as a result of the waves and the water in the raft and feared for their lives. The applicant recalled that they had despaired and feared for their lives. They managed to reach the Turkish coast by paddling with their hands. 20 .     The applicant and H. landed on a rocky shoreline and got out of the raft in order to rest. They had spent about 5-7 minutes on the shore when a Turkish Coastguard boat arrived and the crew of some three individuals instructed them to get back into the raft so they could be rescued, since the boat could not access the place where they had landed. The applicant and H. had to paddle with their hands once more in order to reach the Turkish Coastguard boat. As they approached, the coastguard officers threw them a line, which they caught and used to climb aboard. The applicant explained that the Turkish Coastguard officers had made a video recording of this moment. 21 .     When the applicant arrived at the Turkish Coastguard police station, the group of Afghans with whom he had travelled from Türkiye to Samos on 8   September 2020 were already there, having been “pushed back” separately by the Greek authorities on the same day they had landed on Samos. A member of that group had contacted the ABR NGO before and after their “pushback”, which was evident from the record of a WhatsApp exchange between that individual and ABR. Moreover, according to the applicant, the incident had been reported in detail in a log kept by the Turkish Coastguard. 22 .     The Turkish officials asked the applicant if he and H. knew these people and they replied that they did. The applicant was registered and fingerprinted. He remained at the police station for almost two and a half hours before being taken to the Aydın removal centre, where he spent nine days. There, he encountered other families who had also been “pushed back” by the Greek authorities after having their money and phones stolen . 23 .     The applicant was ultimately released. This left him destitute and, as his money had been stolen by the Greek authorities, he could not buy a train ticket. At the Aydın railway station, someone purchased tickets to İzmir for him and those accompanying him. For lack of money, the applicant was forced to sleep in a city park until he and H. were taken by a fellow Afghan to a place where they were given food and shelter. 24 .     At the time when his application was lodged, the applicant was in Istanbul, working in a factory. Events following the lodging of the application 25 .     The following can be seen from the case file. The applicant was identified as a homeless unaccompanied minor in Thessaloniki on 26   November 2021. On 7   December 2021 the Thessaloniki Public Prosecutor with responsibility for Minors ordered that he be accommodated in a reception facility for unaccompanied minors in the Epirus region. The Ioannina Public Prosecutor appointed a lawyer to lodge an asylum application on the applicant’s behalf. The application was registered on 3   January 2022 and the asylum interview took place on 13   October 2022. On 9   November 2022 the applicant was granted refugee status in Greece. 26 .     During the asylum interview, the applicant stated that he had left his country of origin (Afghanistan) in November 2018 and had arrived in Greece on 16 November 2021, in Thessaloniki. When asked how he had entered Greek territory, he replied: “On foot”. 27 .     When asked through which countries he passed before arriving in Greece, he replied: “Iran and Türkiye”. 28 .     When asked how long he had remained in those two countries, he replied: “In Iran, for about 10 to 12   months, and in Türkiye, for about a year and 11 months, almost two years”. 29 .     When asked how long he had stayed in Türkiye before coming to Greece, he again replied: “Around two years”. 30 .     When asked for what reasons he had left Türkiye, he replied as follows: “For the first year in Türkiye, I was [in contact] with [a] smuggler. During that period, the smuggler would try to send me to Greece by boat every month or two, but each time the coastguard would send us back ( ανάμεσα σε αυτό το χρονικό διάστημα ο διακινητής προσπαθούσε ανά μήνα ή δύο μήνες να με στείλει με βάρκα για να έρθω προς στην Ελλάδα αλλά κάθε φορά μας επιστρέφανε πίσω το λιμενικό ). Every time we came back [to Türkiye], the Turkish police would apprehend us and we would go to a camp where we would sometimes stay for two weeks to a month, and then we would be given a document, which was valid for 15   days, to the effect that we had to leave the country, and I would go back to the flat with that document and the smuggler would try to send me back here again. ” 31 .     When asked again why he had left Türkiye, he replied that he had been trying to avoid being returned to Afghanistan. The parties’ initial submissions The Government 32 .     The Government alleged that there was no official document corroborating the applicant’s submissions as to his presence on Greek territory during the period alleged. In particular, he had not been held at Samos police headquarters or registered at the Samos RIC on 8 or 9   September 2020. Furthermore, no migrant landings had been recorded on those dates in the maritime zone of the island of Samos. 33 .     The Government referred to two incidents that had been recorded in the log kept by the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre ( Ενιαίο Κέντρο Συντονισμού Έρευνας και Διάσωσης – “the JRCC”) as having occurred on 9   September 2020, specifying that they had taken place in Turkish territorial waters. 34 .     Regarding the first incident, they explained as follows. At 3.30   a.m. on 9   September 2020 Hellenic Coastguard vessel 604 alerted the JRCC that an unmanned dinghy ( ακυβέρνητη λέμβος ) carrying some 20 third-country nationals was adrift in a Turkish search and rescue (SAR) region to the east of the island of Samos. The precise geographical coordinates were also given. In accordance with the relevant international procedures, the JRCC immediately notified the competent Turkish SAR Centre to have it take charge of the situation. At 4.40 a.m., the JRCC was advised by vessel 604 that a Turkish patrol boat was in the vicinity of the dinghy in question. The Government submitted that the Turkish patrol boat had rescued the people on board between 4.45   a.m. and 5.30 a.m. 35 .     As to the second incident, they submitted as follows. At 2.35   p.m. on 9   September 2020 vessel 604 alerted the Samos Coastguard, which in turn informed the JRCC, that a rubber dinghy with two third-country nationals on board had been spotted in Turkish territorial waters. The geographical coordinates were again specified. The Government submitted that, as soon as the two occupants had spotted vessel   604, they had changed course and headed for the Turkish coast, adding that they had been picked up by the Turkish Coastguard at 2.55   p.m.,   in Turkish territorial waters. 36 .     In this connection, the Government clarified – assuming that the applicant had been involved in the second incident recorded in the log kept by the JRCC – that the rubber dinghy in question had departed from an unidentified place on the Turkish coast and not from anywhere on Greek territory. They inferred from this that the individuals in question had been attempting to leave the country unlawfully and that responsibility for stopping them had thus fallen to the Turkish authorities. Moreover, noting that the geographical coordinates provided in the incident report indicated that the dinghy had been within Turkish borders, they submitted that it had in any event been for the Turkish authorities to pick up or, if necessary, rescue its occupants. 37 .     Furthermore, in the Government’s view, the applicant’s allegations were completely vague, misleading, false and deceitful. In reply to the allegations of a practice of “pushbacks”, they submitted that maritime border surveillance operations, in particular those that had been carried out jointly with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) since 2008 in the context of Operation Poseidon, were conducted in full compliance with national and international law, including with the fundamental principles of non-refoulement , non-discrimination and the protection of human life and dignity, and were so regardless of the migratory status of the persons crossing the border. 38 .     The Government further questioned the legitimacy of those allegations, arguing that they reproduced the same pattern, were based for the most part on a series of messages or pictures from mobile phones relayed by social media posts and were not supported by credible, well-founded evidence. 39 .     The Government explained that, following Lighthouse Reports’ allegations of “pushbacks” of migrants by the Greek authorities, the National Transparency Authority, which was an independent body, had conducted an investigation into the operational activities of the domestic bodies responsible for monitoring sea and land borders and had found, in its published investigation report no.   OM   3/4, that no evidence of such “pushbacks” had come to light (see paragraphs 129-130 below) . 40 .     The Government further argued that all the documents they had submitted showed that the applicant had not been arrested by the Greek authorities on the dates alleged. The events complained of had resulted from an unsuccessful attempt to enter Greek territory from Türkiye and the applicant’s portrayal of them was entirely misleading and false. 41 .     In the Government’s view, the acts complained of by the applicant as life-threatening and amounting to ill-treatment did not correspond to the operational procedures implemented by the Greek coastguard and border police, which consisted in rescuing persons in danger. In particular, they submitted that the Hellenic Coastguard saved lives at sea and intercepted vessels entering Greek territorial waters in full compliance with the principle of non-refoulement . 42 .     The Government submitted that the applicant had not provided any evidence in support of his allegations and criticised his attempt to establish a connection between them and an allegedly systematic use of these unlawful practices, a connection which had by no means been proved or verified. In the present case, the Court was asked to rule on a narrative which, in their view, was unsupported by any kind of evidence, merely hearsay that was reproduced following the same pattern, for the obvious purpose of creating an impression. Moreover, the narrative in question was vague, inconsistent – incoherent, even – and riddled with inaccuracies and generalities, omitting crucial data, such as the exact location of the events in question, the time when they had taken place and any description of them or the persons involved in the journey from Türkiye. 43 .     More particularly, the Government strongly contested the legitimacy of the videos submitted by the applicant, arguing that they had not had access to them and had never received them. They further submitted that the photographs that had been submitted were unrelated to the applicant and could not be connected to the persons and places referred to. In the Government’s view, photographs and videos taken by mobile devices were of dubious credibility and were usually edited. Those submitted by the applicant in the present case had not undergone an official special verification procedure as to their authenticity, the dates on which they had been taken or the places where they had been recorded, and therefore could not be regarded as reliable evidence. In the Government’s view, the applicant was merely repeating a narrative which could be found in various documents concerning alleged “pushbacks” by the Greek authorities, without establishing any facts relating to him in particular or showing that he had been personally affected by an incident of this kind. Consequently, the applicant’s claims were not corroborated by credible documentary, testimonial, digital or other evidence. 44 .     The Government further explained that the applicant had indeed entered Greece after the impugned events and had been arrested by the Greek authorities at that time; that he had undergone the prescribed reception procedures; that he had been accommodated in reception facilities in keeping with his status; that his application for international protection had been registered; and that the relevant procedures had been followed. They noted, moreover, that in his asylum interview the applicant had made no mention of the “pushback” to which, in the present application, he alleged he had been subjected, even though he had been free to do so. The Government thus submitted that the content of the interview cast doubt on the applicant’s account. 45 .     As to the applicant’s argument that he was in a “inherently vulnerable evidentiary position”, the Government replied that his situation was not comparable to that of detention cases or other cases involving alleged violations of Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention in which it was not in dispute that the applicants were under the authority of the respondent State. On the contrary, the evidence they had provided clearly established that the applicant had never come under Greece’s jurisdiction at any time during the events alleged. 46 .     In this connection, the Government reiterated that the applicant had practically “tailored” various passages taken from NGO reports to fit his narrative, which was thus vague and incoherent from beginning to end. 47 .     In reply to the third parties’ submissions, the Government argued that preventing unauthorised border-crossings was undeniably the State’s sovereign right and could not be framed as a “pushback” or confused with any such conduct. They added that the “pushback” allegations that had been relayed by the media and NGOs in recent years   were not supported by any credible, substantiated or verifiable evidence. 48 .     The Government also noted that the “proof” provided in the context of those allegations had come from the Turkish authorities, namely, the authorities of the country where the applicants had been located prior to their departure, and submitted that such “proof” could not be regarded as credible, coming from sources which, in their view, were neither objective nor reliable. The applicant 49 .     The applicant submitted that the impugned “pushback” was the consequence of a systematic practice on the part of the Hellenic Coastguard. His case was not an isolated incident but was part of a well-documented pattern of abuses, as was evidenced by numerous reports of “pushbacks” from Greece’s land and sea borders by the media, NGOs and international organisations such as the UN. 50 .     The applicant was of the view that asylum-seekers were in an inherently vulnerable evidential position, especially in “pushback” cases. He had submitted a detailed and thoroughly substantiated account of the facts in the present case, in which he had described both his arrival on Samos, Greece, and his arrest and his unlawful, unregistered detention by the authorities, and had explained that they had summarily removed him and abandoned him at sea on a motorless, inflatable raft, in life-threatening conditions. He submitted that this practice was well-documented and widely acknowledged as the modus operandi of the Hellenic Coastguard. 51 .     The applicant argued that the facts set out in the application were based on his detailed testimony and were corroborated by GPS coordinates and reliable photographic and video evidence, along with an expert opinion from the Forensic Architecture (“FA”) research group (see paragraph   60 below). Moreover, the Government had been unable to debunk or refute the evidence and arguments he had provided. 52 .     The applicant further submitted that the Government’s contention that there were no official documents proving his allegations strengthened rather than challenged the arguments he had raised in support of his complaints. He pointed out that, in addition to being coherent and credible, his allegations were also consistent with the practice described in reports by reputable international organisations. He added that the official documents submitted by the Government had come from the very authorities responsible for the personnel implicated in “pushbacks” in the Aegean Sea, including his own, and could not be considered reliable. 53 .     Regarding the two incidents referred to by the Government, the applicant explained that the first concerned a group of approximately 16   asylum-seekers who had travelled to Samos on 8   September 2020 in the same dinghy as he and H. and had been apprehended and removed on the same day they had arrived in Greece. 54 .     As to the second incident, which was recorded by the Greek authorities on 9   September 2020, the applicant disputed the Government’s contention that the occupants of the boat – namely, the vessel carrying him, which had been a motorless raft of the kind widely used by the Greek Coastguard in similar “pushback” incidents – had voluntarily reversed course upon spotting vessel 604 and had headed towards the territorial waters of Türkiye, where they had been rescued by the Turkish Coastguard. In the applicant’s view, by way of such allegations, the Government sought to imply that he and H. had left Türkiye in an attempt to enter Greece, thereby misrepresenting his “pushback” from Greek territory as an attempted unlawful entry. 55 .     Lastly, the applicant criticised what he alleged was a strategy of denial and concealment by the Greek Government in respect of allegations of systematic “pushbacks” in the Aegean Sea . In his view, the Government thereby sought to erase the reality of such systematic summary returns, wrongly categorising expulsions or “pushbacks” of asylum-seekers as “prevention of departure” and thus as routine and lawful border-control practices. In this connection, the incidents of 8 and 9   September 2020, as described in the log kept by the JRCC, followed a similar pattern. The parties’ replies to specific questions put to them in preparation for the hearing 56 .     The Court observes that, in view of the complete divergence between the parties’ submissions as to the facts in the present case, it decided to have them reply in writing to a number of specific questions for the hearing. 57 .     The Court further notes that in the introductory remarks to their replies to the specific questions for the hearing, the Government noted that this was the first time, to their knowledge, that the Court was called upon to assess the reliability and probative value of electronic material submitted by an applicant. In their view, such an assessment should focus on whether the information and the manner in which it had been gathered could be independently verified or tested . Moreover, referring to two documents from the Forensic Division of the Hellenic Police, the Government argued that no metadata were attached to the audiovisual material submitted by the applicant, with the exception of a photograph supposedly depicting the log kept by the Turkish Coastguard, which contained metadata indicating that it had been created at 10.38   p.m. on 27   September 2020 . The Government argued, however, that the document in the photograph gave no indication as to the drafter or the drafting date and for that reason could not be presumed to be an extract from the Turkish Coastguard’s log. The identity of the two individuals spotted by the Hellenic Coastguard on 9   September 2020 on board an inflatable boat in Turkish waters 58 .     The applicant submitted that the two third-country nationals who had been “spotted” by the Hellenic Coastguard at 2.35   p.m. on 9   September 2020 on an inflatable boat in Turkish waters (see paragraph   35 above) had been him and his companion, H. He pointed out, in this regard, that the Turkish Coastguard had reported that at 2.40   p.m. they had rescued two irregular migrants who had been pushed back by the Hellenic Coastguard. The applicant reiterated that the Government had sought to misrepresent his removal from Greek territory as an attempted unlawful entry, implying that he had left the Turkish coast on 9   September 2020 in order to travel to Greece but had changed course after being spotted by the Hellenic Coastguard. His testimony was corroborated by video footage of him and his companion being picked up by the Turkish Coastguard from a motorless raft. Moreover, the respondent State’s argument that the two individuals in question had set off from Türkiye on a motorless raft without paddles raised questions as to the credibility of their position . 59 .     The Government referred to a document from the Security and Policing Division of the Hellenic Coastguard and, explaining that it gave the exact coordinates of the incident recorded in the log, submitted that this incident had taken place on the borderline, within Turkish territorial waters. They reiterated that, at the sight of Hellenic Coastguard vessel 604, the two individuals on board the boat had reversed course and headed for the Turkish coast and had thus been rescued by a Turkish patrol boat at 2.55   p.m. The Government added that they had attached a naval map (in Appendix   23 of their replies) on which they had marked two points to illustrate their allegations: the first, very close to the borderline, indicated the inflatable boat’s location when it had been spotted by Coastguard vessel 604 at 2.35   p.m. and the second, close to the Turkish coast, marked the spot where the boat and the people on board had been picked up by a Turkish rescue vessel at 2.55   p.m. The Government reiterated that the boat had set off from the Turkish coast and had been attempting to enter Greece when it had been spotted. The authorities had no information whatsoever about the people on board, however, and it was therefore impossible to know whether the applicant and H. were the two foreign nationals in question. Moreover, as to the photographs allegedly drawn from the Turkish Coastguard’s archives, the Government referred to the findings of the Forensic Division of the Hellenic Police, according to which, on account of the very low quality of the files (low resolution, motion, distance, angle, partly masked faces), it could not be concluded that the two individuals resembled or were identifiable as the individuals depicted in the Turkish Coastguard’s videos. The expert opinion provided by Forensic Architecture (“FA”) on the nature and context of the evidence submitted by the applicant 60 .     The FA research group drew up an expert opinion, on which the Government were asked to comment, on the nature and context of the evidence submitted by the applicant. The relevant parts of that opinion read as follows (original English): “Drift-backs from Samos between 8-9 September The platform documents two verified cases of arrivals which resulted in drift-backs on the island of Samos for the dates 08-09 September 2020: – A case of 16 asylum seekers, including children and a pregnant woman, who were found drifting on a life raft by the Turkish Coast Guard off the coast of Kuşadası, Aydın. They had arrived in the early hours of 08/09/2020 in a group of 18 on an inaccessible shore of Cape Praso, Samos island. From there, they were taken at gunpoint by officers onboard Hellenic Coast Guard vessels ΛΣ 604 and SAR 513. According to their testimonies, they were beaten and made to strip, had their possessions taken from them, and thrown into a life raft and left to drift back to Turkey. They were taken out of the sea by the Turkish Coast Guard at 03:41 on 09/09/2020. – A case of 2 asylum seekers who were found drifting on an inflatable boat with no engine by the Turkish Coast Guard near the coast of Kuşadası, Aydın. They had arrived in the early hours of 08/09/2020 in the same group of 18 on an inaccessible shore of Cape Praso, Samos Island, from where they walked to the refugee camp in Vathy town. There, they were apprehended and put in an unmarked vehicle and driven to the port, where they were put on a Lambro-type patrol boat of the Hellenic Coast Guard, taken out to sea, and left adrift. They were taken out of the sea by the Turkish Coast Guard at   14:40 on 09/09/2020. To verify these cases, we considered the following sources: – For both cases, images, videos and GPS locations shared by the asylum seekers with the NGO Aegean Boat Report were examined, verified and geolocated, confirming the groups landing on Cape Prasso and the surrounding wooded area. In the case of the group of two people, their presence in the hills overlooking Vathy town, as well as inside the RIC in Vathy is verified through a series of photographs (selfies) they took. In footage shared by the group of 16 who remained on Cape Prasso, Hellenic Coast Guard Vessel ΛΣ 604, can be seen observing the group from a distance. The witnesses describe a second vessel approaching, the description of which matches Search and Rescue vessel ΛΣ 513 of the Hellenic Coast Guard, stationed in Samos. The Turkish Coast Guard published images of the two groups in engineless rafts, taken during the two, separate operations they conducted to take the people out of the water. Comparing the clothing and facial features, the people in the rafts were positively identified as the same people who had arrived on Samos the previous day. While the group of 16 was rescued during nighttime, rendering a geolocation impossible, it was possible to confirm that the raft used is a model manufactured by the Greek yachting equipment manufacturer Lalizas. The photos taken during the rescue of the group of two were geolocated to the sea near the shores of Kuşadası, Aydın, in the Kuşadası National Park. – The two incidents also appear in FRONTEX’s JORA (Joint Operation Reporting Application) database, where the agency appears to have falsely logged them as ‘preventions of entry’. Specifically, the JORA database contains: – An entry for a ‘prevention of departure’ incident that took place on 09/09/2020, including a group of approximately 20 people traveling on a ‘inflatable/rubber boat/zodiac boat/dinghy’ type vessel. – An entry for a ‘prevention of departure’ incident that took place on 09/09/2020, including a group of 2 people traveling on a ‘inflatable/rubber boat/zodiac boat/dinghy’ type vessel. ” 61 .     The Government challenged FA’s findings on the following grounds. 62 .     Firstly, they noted that FA had stated that the boat in question had been spotted by the Turkish Coastguard off the coast of Kuşadası, in the Aydın region, at 2.40   p.m., whereas the Hellenic Coastguard had referred to a boat located near “Karakol Br.” “Poyraz T. ”   at 2.55   p.m., and they concluded that the event described by FA did not coincide with the incident recorded by the Hellenic Coastguard. In support of its allegation, the Government provided a naval map. 63 .     Secondly, the Government submitted that the expert opinion was based on open-source information and on two photographs supposedly taken by the applicant and H. from a hill overlooking Vathy, specifying, in this regard, that the photographs were posted on FA’s website as evidence of the applicant’s “pushback”. 64 .     In particular, the Government argued that the “findings” presented in the expert opinion in question were based on digital media the reliability of which could was not established and amounted to a “reconstruction” of the applicant’s allegations. They argued that the references used by FA were supported solely by information provided by stakeholders acting in the field of migration and were pooled together to produce a “visualisation” of the applicant’s alleged “pushback”. In the Government’s view, however, the analysis thus conducted seemed completely inconclusive and weak, as it was essentially based on a reproduction of the applicant’s testimony. Moreover, noting, for example, that no effort had been made to obtain information from the competent Greek authorities, the Government concluded that the expert opinion lacked impartiality and was far from being thorough, objective and reliable . 65 .     As to the reliability of the videos derived from open-source information, the Government explained that the National Transparency Authority had been called upon in similar cases to ascertain the authenticity and probative value of a video produced by one of FA’s partner organisations, Lighthouse Reports, and had concluded, after examination of the material in question by the Forensic Division of the Hellenic Police, that the video’s reliability could not be confirmed. 66 .     The Government added that it had asked the Forensic Division of the Hellenic Police to examine the photograph allegedly depicting the applicant in a place overlooking Vathy, since the expert opinion relied in part on this photograph and it was presented as evidence in the case file posted on FA’s website. They alleged that the Forensic Division’s report showed that the person depicted in the photograph was not the applicant and that, in both photographs, the person in question appeared to be the applicant’s companion, H. 67 .     In the Government’s view, the above considerations raised serious doubts as to the credibility of FA’s expert opinion, which could not be considered reliable. The applicant’s statements in his asylum interview 68 .     The Government argued that the applicant’s description of the events in his asylum interview (see paragraphs     26-31 above) was a mere assertion which had been made in the context of a procedure through which he had been seeking to achieve a specific aim, namely, the acceptance of his asylum application. Furthermore, they explained that, under domestic law, civil servants were required to transfer to the competent prosecutor any information regarding possible criminal acts as might be disclosed in the performance of their duties, provided certain conditions were met. In the present case, the statements in question had been articulated in a very vague and general manner and had not yielded any credible evidence in respect of the events alleged. The officer conducting the applicant’s interview had thus had no grounds to report that a potentially unlawful act might have taken place. 69 .     Moreover, as to the content of the applicant’s statements, the Government submitted that it corresponded to a typical narrative furnished by third-country nationals attempting to cross the Turkish border and enter Greek territory. That narrative described nothing more than an interception by the Hellenic Coastguard. Furthermore, referring to the terms used by the applicant, they did not rule out that what he had described as being “sent back” referred to an event that had taken place before crossing Turkish territorial waters, since the presence of a Hellenic Coastguard vessel constituted sufficient means of preventing irregular entry to the country in such cases. 70 .     For his part, the applicant pointed out that the question put to the Government implied that every attempt he might have made to enter Greece prior to December 2021 had necessarily been unsuccessful. He explained that he had not stated in his asylum interview that he had unsuccessfully attempted to enter Greece by sea, but rather that he had successfully entered Greece by boat on 8   September 2020 and had been subsequently removed on 9   September 2020. The means by which the applicant obtained the audiovisual material submitted to the Court, given that his mobile phone had allegedly been confiscated by the Greek authorities, 71 .     The applicant explained that the photographs and videos he had adduced as evidence of his arrival on the island of Samos with some 17   other individuals on 8   September 2020 had been taken by a different member of the group. This person had been one of the approximately 16   individuals who had been summarily removed from Samos in a separate “pushback” operation which had commenced on 8   September and had lasted until that group had been picked up by the Turkish Coastguard on the morning of 9   September . He added that the files (photographs, videos and GPS coordinates) had been sent in real time to the Norwegian NGO ABR on 8   September, as shown by the time stamps that could be seen in the screenshots of the WhatsApp chat between ABR and the sender, which ABR had later sent to his lawyer. 72 .     Moreover, the applicant submitted that the photograph from inside the camp in Vathy had been taken by Z.H., a relative of H.’s, and had also been sent to ABR, which had in turn sent it to his lawyer. In this connection, he added that this same photograph had subsequently also been provided directly to the lawyer by H.’s rel