A/HRC/35/25/Add.2 the migrants. Furthermore, various levels of bureaucracy make the process incomprehensible to most. People receiving the wrong information may make harmful decisions, being unaware of the consequences. Given the complexity of the procedures, and the constantly changing legislation and practices, as well as the bureaucratic hurdles, access to information and legal assistance for migrants seems all the more important. C. Lack of due process guarantees 78. Law 4375/2016 extends the criteria for an asylum application to be inadmissible and defines exceptional derogation measures that can be applied in case of an exceptional number of persons applying for international protection at the border. These provisions raise serious concerns over due process guarantees. 79. An application is considered inadmissible for a number of reasons, including the existence of a “first country of asylum” or a “safe third country”, whereas Greece has never applied the concept of a “first country of asylum”. Vulnerable groups are exempt from the inadmissibility procedure. 80. The Special Rapporteur was informed about certain nationalities being processed as a priority and is concerned that discrimination based on nationality undermines the right to due process, as it hinders persons belonging to a specific nationality from accessing the asylum system, family reunifications or relocations. The procedure’s priorities should not be based on one’s nationality, but rather on vulnerabilities. The Special Rapporteur was informed that, by the end of 2016, all asylum applications were being processed strictly on the basis of the date of arrival, taking into account vulnerabilities and objective factors such as availability of interpretation. 81. Admissibility decisions issued are consistently short, qualify Turkey as a safe third country and reject the application as inadmissible: this makes them practically unreviewable. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that admissibility interviews will overlook protection concerns, including those of vulnerable groups, and that people may be returned in violation of the non-refoulement principle. The Special Rapporteur was informed that between May 2016 and March 2017, of the 27,000 asylum applications that had been made, only 1,609 were rejected on the basis of the “safe third country” principle and another 2,414 were rejected on their merits. 82. Derogation measures, on the other hand, include the registration of applications by the police and armed staff and the possibility of officials of the European Asylum Support Office supporting national authorities. Law 4375/2016 specifies that the process shall be completed within 15 days including the appeal stage, which raises concerns over access to an effective remedy, despite the support of NGOs. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that asylum seekers may not be granted a fair hearing of their case, as their claims are examined under the admissibility procedure, with a very short deadline to prepare. Provisions under the fast track regime are problematic due to the lack of individual assessment of each case, and the risk of violating the non-refoulement principle is consequently very high. 83. Competent lawyers and NGOs should be able to have access to migrants in reception and identification centres and open camps. Despite legal assistance being available for the second instance of the asylum procedure, the Special Rapporteur encourages allocation of the necessary resources for capacity-building and for local lawyers and bar associations to be able to offer properly paid services from the start of the procedure. D. Appeals Authority 84. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the continuing work of the Appeals Committee mandated to deal with the backlog of appeals lodged under the “old asylum procedure”. In 13