This final example of food provision combines changes and waiting to showcase how ignorance is mobilised by the authorities, contributing to the cumulative construction of detention but also helping to conceal it. The authorities implemented this change without any stated reasoning, producing the wait and depriving people of food. The result may have seemed obvious, nonetheless this ignorance was mobilised to exercise control over the people detained within the CCAC and with no other options but to abide by the change. If the authorities assume responsibility through ‘restrictions’ to the CCAC and by measures of pervasive social control, the provision of food should be ensured. Moreover, the provision of food should be undertaken in a way that does not further deprive people of their liberties and ability to leave the CCAC. Waiting for hours in queues exemplifies a non-governance which is particularly dehumanising. The decision to immediately re-join the queue for lunch was described by an IHR client as humiliating. 5. Challenges litigating Finally, I conclude by considering how a third ignorance pervades the object of this paper and detention in the CCAC. Legal aid organisations like IHR attempt to mediate an ignorance, making it more difficult to challenge the cumulative measures of detention. This is best exemplified by the fact that the CCAC is not a formal space of detention yet amounts to a de facto detention site. The ‘sophisticated vocabulary’ of ‘restriction of freedom’ orders serves to evade the legal safeguards for detention spaces. The Reception Conditions Directive outlines safeguards, guarantees and legal remedies which must be upheld where detention is used. None of these safeguards are in place as the authorities refuse the categorisation of detention. The changes to detention practices, the failure to announce or communicate these changes, coupled with the delays in clients’ ability to leave the CCAC, produce additional ignorance which makes it difficult for NGOs to litigate and work in solidarity with people on Samos. Detention practices have a profound impact on the ability of NGOs, who mostly operate outside the CCAC, to provide legal counselling and assistance generally, primarily as people can often not leave the CCAC to attend appointments. The constant and unannounced changes make this additionally difficult as organisations are constantly having to anticipate new barriers to leaving the CCAC and adapt the provision of their services. For example, legal organisations must anticipate that the date of a substantive asylum interview may suddenly be changed to the following day, even if a client is provided with an invitation to interview for two weeks in the future. Or they must change their appointment times to avoid requiring people to forgo food to attend appointments. Moreover, that the organisations do not receive formal communication or notice of these changes can undermine their reliability with clients. If the organisation recommends that they may be permitted to leave by asking for permission the day before, but the reception nonetheless refuses, this may reflect on the organisation as well. When asylum interviews are scheduled at short notice or before a person can leave the CCAC, the organisations may adapt to provide legal information over the phone, which is more depersonalised and may make a person feel less comfortable disclosing particularly sensitive topics, including potential mistreatment at the hands of the authorities (14). 17