A/HRC/35/25/Add.2 46. At the Elliniko Pre-Removal Centre for Migrant Women, very few activities are offered to the migrants. Health care is insufficient as there is no doctor present on site, and detainees complained about inadequate health care, particularly those with mental health issues. Furthermore, it was reported that dietary requirements and secondary health-care needs were not taken seriously. 47. Most detainees in the Elliniko Pre-Removal Centre for Migrant Women expressed their wish to apply for asylum or to register for assisted voluntary return. However, they were lacking information about the next steps in the procedure and complained about delays in the procedure. Most of them had been in detention for six months or longer, whereas it is stated in Law 4375/2016 that the detention of an asylum seeker constitutes a ground for accelerating the asylum procedure. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the delay in registering their claim for asylum puts them at potential risk of return in violation of the non-refoulement principle and he urges authorities to swiftly register and process asylum claims of detainees. Furthermore, he observes that Greek law provides for the possibility for the Greek Asylum Service to issue a recommendation to the police authorities regarding the continuation or the lifting of a detention order. He strongly encourages the implementation of alternatives to detention. It must be noted however, that according to information provided by the Greek Asylum Service in March 2017, the average duration for the examination of asylum claims of those detained in the Elliniko preremoval centre was less than one month. 48. Alternatives to detention are often not considered by the Government, and an individual assessment mechanism to determine the necessity, proportionality and reasonableness of detention in each individual case in accordance with Law 3907/2011 is not consistently applied. The absence of an automatic periodic judicial review makes it difficult to determine the lawfulness of detention. 49. Detainees have the right to appeal and submit objections against their detention, as provided in article 76 of Law 3386/2005. However, legal aid in immigration detention facilities provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is scarce due to funding shortages. Moreover, migrants in pre-removal detention centres are often unaware of their legal status and do not know about the possibility of challenging their detention. 50. Contact with the outside world is difficult for some detained migrants. Cell phones are confiscated and access to a phone is not guaranteed for those who do not have money to pay for calls themselves. This prevents detainees from obtaining information or evidence to substantiate their claims. Situations of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma may also make it difficult for detainees to understand their rights, thus in fact preventing them from making effective use of existing review mechanisms. As there is no reason for preventing migrants from communicating with family, friends, lawyers, consular services or any other person, prohibiting cell phones can have a profound effect on their mental health and is utterly unnecessary. The practice should be abolished. B. Detention upon arrival 51. Under article 14 of Law 4375/2016, new arrivals are subject to a restriction on their freedom of movement: within the premises of the reception and identification centres on the Aegean islands or in Evros. While the provision does not refer to detention, the Special Rapporteur observed that there was a de facto systematic detention of migrants. Furthermore, at the time of the visit, detention often lasted longer than the legally prescribed 25 days during which time migrants are not able to leave the centre. Information provided after the visit indicates that it now lasts less than 25 days. Detainees must be informed, in a language they understand, of the reasons for their detention and their rights, including the right to challenge their detention and the right to legal aid. As migrants detained in the hotspots do not receive a detention order, challenging the detention decision is impossible. 52. The Special Rapporteur deeply regrets the policy of increasing the use of detention of persons irregularly entering Greek territory, including unaccompanied children and families. Measures must be taken to ensure a proper individual assessment of all migrants 8