more specifically to the ‘word’ (timi) or verbal assurance which men give of their eventual intentions. In this case, the police become obliged to offer unrestricted access to all detention facilities, even though this is prescribed in law anyway, and the NPM offer back as a reward more appeasing or not entirely damning monitoring reports. However, this obligation implies a relationship of inequality and hierarchy, whereby the donor of the gift is inferior to the recipient (Hirschon, 2008). I further suggest that the binding notion underlying this unofficial obligation places a limitation on the sense of freedom the NPM have to criticize government practices. The NPM’s constricted position in the field is not lost on those supporting those in detention. As an NGO practitioner shared, ‘They are trying to step in two boats. They don’t want to clash with the police, they obviously don’t want to lose their access. So, they cannot be too hostile. I understand it but in Greece independence doesn’t work this way.’ (Interview, Athens, 2018). Closely linked to the NPM’s lack of capacity for the amount of work they have to deal with, NGOs report that their responses to their complaints are very slow. As John said, for example, ‘Usually we have closed our cases, by the time the Ombudsman has done anything about them. They are slow, from the 50 cases we send them, we are getting a full answer on 10’ (Interview, Athens, 2018). Yet, while the NPM’s role in preventing ill-treatment inside detention centres is severely curtailed, their authority as the only monitoring institution of confinement practices is widely acknowledged by civil society actors, who confirm that their legitimacy is never questioned. If they did not exist, Greek NGOs offering support to those in detention would have nowhere to turn to in cases of complaints and ill-treatment inside detention. As another NGO practitioner put it, ‘it’s a strategy on our behalf [to send complaints to them]. It secures visibility of the police’s specific practices. If you have a response from the Ombudsman you can use it in court’ (Interview, Athens, 2018). To go back to the question of the NPM member who wondered about the quality of the monitoring visit, while the Greek NPM has an important role to play in the abusive landscape of immigration detention in Greece, its inspections are fearful and vacillating. But more than the actual inspections, their outcomes are limited too. The NPM is highly constrained in what factors they are permitted to discuss and the conclusions they can draw in each case. Their remit is distinctly narrow, as they focus merely on official rules and procedures. Broader questions about the purposes of detention and the effects they have on people are beyond the scope of their investigations. By individualising systemic 148