facilities, combined with indefinite detention resulted in Greece being the first State towards which returns under the Dublin II Regulation were suspended. In particular, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece23 challenged the presumption of safety and of a level playing field in asylum processing within the EU, with the Court arguing against the idea that there is „per se a sufficient basis for intra-EU transfers of asylum seekers‟. It found that the dysfunctions of the Greek asylum system and the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in the country violated articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention for Human Rights and deprived asylum seekers from their right to an effective remedy. This resulted, for the first time since the implementation of the Dublin II Regulation, in a suspension of transfers of asylum-seekers from other member states towards Greece. The broader implications of this decision were evident soon enough; Greece was pressured to dramatically overhaul its asylum system, reception conditions and broader practices in dealing with irregular migrants, a process that continues to this day. and cannot bring the desired outcomes, even by the mere fact that it cannot survive legally for long. 2. Greece can invest in setting higher incentives for migrants to return to their home countries and pursue a closer cooperation with the International Organisation for Migration that carries out voluntary return programmes. 3. The authorities can reduce the overall financial costs of their policy framework by assessing on a more individualised basis the status of irregular migrants in particular of those that are currently in detention, by taking into account that: Given the profound arbitrariness of the latest policy measure, its short viability in terms of legality, the doubtfulness of its outcome, the big financial investment involved and the political risks of any new convictions, it is beyond doubt that this is not an effective and sustainable policy for Greece to manage its irregular migrant population.  In view of the recent crisis, many migrants who have lived in years legally for over ten years lost their residence permits over the past months. The authorities should seek to regularise their stay, in particular since many of these people have developed ties with the country that would entitle them to a residence status.  Asylum seekers and other persons whose removal is not feasible must not be held in detention for as long as their removal cannot be carried out. Supplementary measures can also include  Recommendations 1. Greece must explore its alternatives before resorting to a measure that entails huge financial and political risks against Greece, Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search. aspx?i=001-116545 . 23 ECtHR (GC), M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Appl. No. 30696/09, 21 Jan. 2011. 24 6 Surveillance schemes alternative to detention. Pilot schemes have been tried in Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom but also Australia and the USA24. While state authorities have been often reluctant to adopt such schemes, the overall assessment is positive. Forced Migration Review, fall 2013, Issue no. 44, pages 40-62.