port are likely to be placed in refugee accommodation at a closed facility at the airport and automatically placed in the accelerated asylum procedure.132 Therefore, they are often not identified as being traumatised, nor given sufficient time to present their case clearly. This places them at a higher risk of being returned to their home country without a proper and rigorous examination of the asylum application. The report further noted that there is a risk that failed asylum-seekers who have suffered torture or trauma might be detained pending deportation when there has been a failure to identify them as a VoT during the earlier stages of the asylum process. The policies highlighted above are failing to fulfil their key objectives: (i) to identify vulnerable asylum-seekers, including VoTs within detention facilities; (ii) to ensure that detention does not have a debilitating effect on the individual’s health; and (iii) to immediately remove the individual from detention if their health is being negatively impacted. The IRCT considers that these examples of policies that fail to protect vulnerable persons where safeguards are most needed strengthens the argument for the complete abolition of the detention of vulnerable persons. As many VoTs may have experienced torture in a detention environment in their home country, being detained during the asylum process is highly likely to retraumatise the victim, which has a severe and long-term impact on the victim’s physical and mental health. Detention provisions in the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD) In the EU, the recast RCD lays down provisions for the detention of vulnerable persons, including VoTs, on the basis that: “The health, including mental health, of applicants in detention who are vulnerable persons shall be of primary concern to national authorities. Where vulnerable persons are detained, Member States shall ensure regular monitoring and adequate support taking into account their particular situation, including health.”133 There are a number of concerns with this provision (Article 11): • The wording of “primary concern” and “adequate support” are too vague and allow Member States to interpret this provision widely. • The obligation to “ensure regular monitoring” does not indicate a specific time-frame, leaving room for interpretation. • There is no requirement for a full medical evaluation to be carried out by a qualified expert.134 • There is no exception made for detaining unaccompanied minors. This is of particular concern given that their age and the fact they have travelled alone makes it likely that they are highly traumatised even before entering the asylum process. • Member States may derogate from some obligations in Article 11 when detention takes place at a border post or in a transit zone if “duly justified”.135 There is a concern that this leaves a wide margin of interpretation open to Member States to decide when to derogate, thereby undermining the protection of vulnerable persons in border and transit zones. Have safeguards improved in the new provisions to the EU asylum directives? The IRCT is extremely concerned that the recast RCD does little to improve the obligations on Member States to conduct full medical evaluations of vulnerable persons in detention, in order to assess whether the detention is negatively impacting on the individual’s health. This is particularly regrettable given the likelihood that detention will trigger re-traumatisation for VoTs. Recognising victims of torture in national asylum procedures / 65