In February 2026, international and domestic human rights organisations and bodies intervened publicly regarding whether the Greek authorities violated national legislation and international law in connection with the Chios shipwreck of 4 February 2026, which resulted in the deaths of 15 people and the serious injury of 24 others (at least 11 of whom were children), following a collision between a Coast Guard vessel and a boat carrying refugees.
Beyond the intervention of the judiciary, a Sworn Administrative Inquiry (ΕΔΕ) was ordered against a Coast Guard officer. According to reporting by Kathimerini, the Coast Guard vessel involved had not activated its onboard camera at the time of the incident.
More specifically, on 4 February, the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) – the independent advisory body to the Greek state on human rights issues – issued a statement noting that any incident involving loss of life at sea requires an immediate, thorough, and transparent reconstruction of the facts, and must be investigated with full openness, impartiality, and in line with internationally recognised standards. This includes, in particular, a precise account of the circumstances of the collision, the collection of reliable testimonies from survivors and rescue personnel, the assessment of all available material such as video footage, radar data, and communications, and the prompt notification of victims’ families and the public about the investigation’s findings.
The GNCHR added that timely and credible investigations into such incidents are essential for safeguarding the rule of law and maintaining public trust in state institutions. Referring to the Farmakonisi shipwreck, the Commission recalled that Greece was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in Safi and Others v. Greece (5418/15), not only because lives were lost, but primarily because the authorities failed to conduct an adequate investigation, thereby breaching the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life). The Court found that the shortcomings in the inquiry were so serious that they could not shed sufficient light on how the shipwreck occurred. This case law makes clear that a prompt, effective, and transparent investigation into the circumstances that led to such a tragedy is a distinct and fundamental obligation of a state governed by the rule of law.
The Ombudsman also stressed to the Coast Guard that the incident must be examined impartially and thoroughly, recalling that, according to the case‑law of the ECtHR in judgments against Greece, the primary obligation during border‑control operations at sea is the protection of human life. The constitutionally established independent authority explained that, as the National Mechanism for Investigating Arbitrary Incidents, it had pointed out to the Coast Guard the investigative standards required under ECtHR case‑law in similar cases involving shipwrecks, dangerous manoeuvres, or shootings by Coast Guard personnel. These standards, the Ombudsman noted, must also guide the current administrative inquiry. They include ensuring that the investigation is independent not only from the officers involved but also from colleagues responsible for preliminary fact‑finding; taking all reasonable steps needed to clarify the incident; securing every objective piece of evidence, such as footage from Coast Guard cameras or mobile phones, recorded communications with the Operations Centre, full forensic reports, expert assessments of the vessels, raising the sunken boat if necessary, and ballistic examinations if gunfire is alleged; and obtaining statements from the widest possible range of witnesses, including survivors and rescue personnel. The Ombudsman added that the inquiry must also examine whether the operation was organised in a way that minimised risks to life, whether alternatives to pursuit were available, and ultimately determine whether the operation was focused on safeguarding the lives of those on board.
The HLHR noted that the circumstances of the incident remain unclear. Based on the information released so far, however, it appears that the Coast Guard conducted a deterrence operation using a high‑speed patrol vessel rather than a rescue operation. The organisation stressed that choosing deterrence over rescue, especially when dealing with an overcrowded and possibly unseaworthy boat already within Greek territorial waters and close to shore, raises serious concerns about the Coast Guard’s role in protecting life at sea and the priority given to human safety.
The HLHR added that the ECtHR has repeatedly condemned Greece for violations of the right to life (Article 2 ECHR) during border‑control operations carried out by the Coast Guard. In several cases (including Safi, F.M., Alkhatib, Almukhlas & Al‑Maliki), the Court found that when the Coast Guard encountered refugee boats, protecting life was neither the aim nor the priority of the operation. According to this case‑law, in similar fatal incidents, the authorities had not planned their operations with the necessary attention to the risks to life and physical integrity of all passengers, nor had they exercised the required diligence to minimise danger.
The organisation concluded that a prompt, effective, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of the tragedy is a core obligation of a state governed by the rule of law. It also emphasised that protecting human life at sea is an absolute legal duty, regardless of the identity or legal status of those on board.
UNHCR stressed the need for full transparency and clarification of the facts in such maritime operations, noting that the Chios incident is not an isolated case. It highlighted that between 2015 and 2025, 3,148 people died or went missing in the Aegean Sea. UNHCR added that safeguarding human life at sea is both a legal and humanitarian imperative, requiring cooperation among all actors.
Human Rights Watch commented that although the Greek authorities were quick to attribute responsibility for the tragedy to the refugee boat and the smugglers, the incident fits into a broader, well‑documented pattern of reckless behaviour by the Greek Coast Guard. The organisation noted that the Coast Guard has repeatedly faced allegations of dangerous conduct at sea and failure to protect human life.
In its own statement, Refugee Support Aegean (RSA) argued that the Chios shipwreck once again highlights a failure by the authorities to fulfil their search‑and‑rescue obligations. According to the organisation, the available information and the Coast Guard’s initial announcement suggest that, instead of launching a rescue effort, the Coast Guard’s high‑speed patrol vessel PLS 1077 immediately initiated a deterrence operation. RSA stressed that this occurred even though the refugees’ boat was clearly in danger, severely overcrowded, and located very close to the Greek coast, specifically near Myrsinidi beach on Chios. The organisation reiterated that protecting human life at sea is an absolute legal obligation, regardless of the legal status of those on board, and that pushbacks are prohibited under international, EU, and constitutional law.
In a state governed by the rule of law, authorities must comply with international legal standards on search and rescue at sea, as well as with the rules governing international protection for refugees fleeing war, authoritarian or undemocratic regimes, or other dangers in their countries of origin. This includes refraining from unlawful expulsions or pushbacks of asylum seekers.
As the UNHCR has underlined, European law requires that border‑surveillance measures be carried out in full respect of human rights and refugee law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention. It has also stressed that states must honour their obligations and uphold fundamental rights, such as the right to life and the right to seek asylum.
In the case at hand, however, serious concerns arise as to whether the Greek authorities breached national legislation, EU law, and international law in relation to the Chios shipwreck. The incident must therefore be examined independently and effectively by the competent state and judicial bodies.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate