Exceptionally in G.R.J. v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held the first oral hearing on its treatment of evidence in pushback cases. G.R.J. claimed that he had been in Greece and was pushed back in violation of articles 2 (right to life), article 3 (prohibition against torture), and article 13 (right to effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Greece argued that, because it had no official records of G.R.J.’s presence within its territory on the relevant dates, G.R.J. could not prove he had ever entered Greece and been pushed back. Greece claimed instead that G.R.J. had been spotted by the Hellenic Coast Guard in Turkish territorial waters and that it had informed the Turkish Coast Guard, which then rescued him.

In its decision (from 7 January 2025), the Court concluded, for the first time, that a systematic state practice of pushbacks of foreign nationals was in place in Greece (§187-190). It also recognized that proving pushbacks is “an extremely difficult task” for applicants, “given [pushbacks’] inherently secretive and unofficial nature” (§191). The judge even stated that the absence of official Greek records of G.R.J.’s arrival at the Greek island of Samos was at the core of his claims (§193). But the judges still found that G.R.J. had not sufficiently proven that he was personally subjected to the pushback described, concluding that his case was inadmissible for failure to establish victim status.

Extraordinary efforts were made by the applicant’s traveling group and civil society to preserve evidence of G.R.J.’s arrival on the Greek island of Samos and his pushback between 8-9 September 2020. The amount of evidence submitted was already well above and beyond what most pushback survivors are able to present. In particular, this evidence included:

(1) Photos and videos taken by G.R.J.’s traveling group after the group’s arrival on Samos. G.R.J. can be seen in one of these videos, which were shared with the NGO Aegean Boat Report (ABR) on 8 September. ABR, an NGO tracking arrivals and pushbacks, preserved the videos.

(2) A recording of the traveling group’s WhatsApp conversation with ABR, which also included a shared location with coordinates placing the group on Samos.

(3) Photos showing one of G.R.J.’s companion overlooking the Vathy refugee camp in Samos and an explanation that although a photo of G.R.J. was also taken in the same location, it had not been transferred from G.R.J.’s phone, which was then stolen by Greek authorities during the pushback.

(4) Video footage and photos as well as an event summary from the Turkish Coast Guard (TCG) showing the TCG’s rescue of G.R.J. and his companion from a motorless raft at sea on 9 September.

(5) An expert opinion from research agency Forensic Architecture, finding a record of a “prevention of departure” operation in Frontex's database which corresponded to G.R.J.’s pushback. A journalistic investigation revealed that this terminology was used to conceal pushbacks.

(6) A witness statement from an Afghan community representative in the Vathy refugee camp, who confirmed he had met G.R.J. there and explained that he had lost contact with G.R.J. and his companion after he had helped them contact Greek officials to register claims for asylum. The witness also reported that these officials had refused to give him information when he had asked where the two teenagers were and also warned him not to contact UNHCR.

One week before the ECtHR hearing, Greece also sent a report from the Greek National Transparency Authority (NTA) summarizing records it had accessed from the Greek police, Coast Guard, and Vathy refugee camp authorities. The report also included summaries of records kept by UNHCR and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) confirming two witnesses to G.R.J.’s presence on the Greek island of Samos (one the Afghan community representative mentioned above, and another asylum-seeker who had also met the boys in Vathy camp). Crucially, the NTA summarized in this report that:

(1) authorities had not properly logged the departure and arrival of a Coast Guard vessel from Vathy port during the time period of G.R.J.'s pushback. This vessel matched the author’s description of the vessel he was forced to board;
(2) authorities only retroactively logged their alleged spotting of two individuals in distress at sea. This entry initially recorded that Greek authorities had spotted them in Greek waters, but was later amended to record that the sighting was in Turkish waters;
(3) there was no record of any call by Greek authorities to Turkish authorities, despite Greece’s claims that it informed the Turkish Coast Guard that two people needed to be rescued.

After it concluded that there was a systematic pushback practice in Greece, the Court said it would establish whether G.R.J. had provided enough initial evidence (legally called “prima facie” evidence) that he had “not only … entered Greece and then ended up in Türkiye on the relevant dates” but also established a “connection” between these events (§191-192).

The Court found that the applicant's account of the facts was not credible. It focused on the lack of a photograph showing his full face in Samos and dismissed G.R.J.'s explanation that he had lost this photo when his phone was stolen by Greek officials. This came despite reports confirming phone confiscation is a well-documented tactic of Greek authorities, in order to destroy evidence of their pushback operations. The Court concluded that the absence of a photo of G.R.J. in Samos “cast[s] serious doubt on the credibility of his account” (§212).

The Court did not equally scrutinize Greece’s absurd claims that the two boys - shown in Turkish Coast Guard footage on a motorless raft without paddles - had not been pushed back and abandoned at sea by Greece but rather were attempting to reach the Greek shore from Türkiye. The Court said that Greece’s version was contradicted by evidence submitted by Greece itself, but it did not hold this against Greece. The Court's evaluation of the evidence did not even mention key findings in the NTA report on the examined Greek paperwork.

Procedurally, the Court was supposed to first look at whether the applicant had prima facie proof of his account and, if so, then look at whether Greece could adequately rebut it. Instead, it seemed to require more evidence from G.R.J., despite acknowledging that a pushback may have occurred on that day. In its decision, the Court said that G.R.J. had failed to establish “beyond reasonable doubt”—a much higher standard of proof than prima facie—that he was part of the group pushed back.

Read more detailed analysis of the Court’s inadmissibility decision here.

The Court’s inadmissibility decision could not be appealed, leaving G.R.J.’s substantive claims unexamined. However, the consequences of this decision are not only negative for G.R.J.  The Court imposed an unclear and heightened standard of proof on G.R.J., and therefore potentially on other victims of pushbacks who may try to access justice in front of the ECtHR. The challenges of maintaining evidence that G.R.J. faced are faced by all pushback victims. So, although the Court found that Greece systematically carries out pushbacks, it potentially closed the possibility for others to access the Court and for Greece to face the consequences of its unlawful practice. The Court’s unbalanced evaluation of the evidence does not correspond to its crucial role in protecting marginalized victims challenging patterns of violations that states deny, and for which impunity is maintained at the national level.

As the ECtHR refused to look at his legal claims, the Human Rights Committee of the UN (HRC) is one of the only remaining forums available to G.R.J. against Greece. As an adjudicative body competent to decide on cases alleging violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the HRC’s individual complaint mechanism offers opportunities that G.R.J.’s claim before the ECtHR did not.

The HRC has consistently recognized structural imbalances in access to evidence, giving complainants’ accounts significant weight where the state is in exclusive possession of the evidence and fails to provide any satisfactory explanation of the events. Further, the ICCPR allows G.R.J. to claim rights that the ECHR does not include. G.R.J. asks the HRC to decide on how pushbacks impact his right to legal personhood (article 16) and right to measures of protection as a minor (article 24(1)), in addition to his right to life (article 6) and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment (article 7).

At the heart of his complaint is how the obstruction of evidence throughout pushbacks denies victims, including children, access to an effective remedy both during and after their expulsion (article 2(3)). G.R.J.’s case in front of the HRC now offers the opportunity for a decision on the merits, which the ECtHR declined to provide.

Pushback practices remain widespread across the EU and may increase as a result of  Europe’s recent asylum and migration reforms. Despite a decades-long pushback practice, no effective investigations in any case nor single prosecution of Greek officials for alleged pushbacks has taken place in Greece. Instead, human rights defenders who document pushbacks and assist asylum seekers have faced criminalization. For instance, Panayote Dimitras of the Greek Helsinki Monitor and Tommy Olsen of Aegean Boat Report, both essential to documenting the pushback of G.R.J. and many others, currently face trial in Greece.

Against this backdrop, UN treaty bodies have an even more important role in scrutinizing the human rights impacts of pushbacks at the international level. The hope is that the HRC will carry out a more balanced evaluation of the evidence than took place before the ECtHR. Rather than let domestic and regional impunity sit unchallenged, G.R.J. asks the Committee of specialized, independent experts to evaluate his pushback under international law.

Beyond G.R.J.’s own case, the HRC’s findings could help develop international standards on evidence in pushback cases, holding open space for pushback victims to challenge their treatment and have the harms they face recognized, despite the widespread normalization of border violence across Europe.