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.

On this matter, despite acknowledging the sovereign right of States to control migration, the HRCR (2010, 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, p 64).

Especially with regard to migrant children, it has been repeatedly discussed by the Greek Ombudsman (2005, 2014, 2017) 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. 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, p 3) concluded that ‘offences concerning irregular entry or stay cannot under any circumstances have consequences similar to those deriving from the commission of a crime’.