Working Paper 44/2014 certain principles that must be met: detention must be implemented in good faith, the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, the duration of the detention reasonable and the authorities must process the deportation within a timely manner. Greece has already been repeatedly convicted for failing to meet these principles and for arbitrarily locking up migrants under deplorable conditions in violation of the Convention – even in cases where the detention had only lasted a few weeks 14. In line with the Court's standards, in a recent judgment a Greek court acquitted from all charges 15 irregular migrants who had escaped from a detention centre, on grounds that the facility did not meet international standards. This by itself rendered the duration and conditions of their detention unlawful15. For the latest measure to successfully pass the Convention test, first the detention conditions must improve and be brought in line with international standards. This by itself would require significant financial investment – way beyond the current budget. Even then, however, Greece would still be in violation of the Convention, because it would fail to meet the rest of the requirements that the Court has set. Greece therefore will be acting in violation also on this ground. Assessing the Cost and the Benefits Even though Greece has an undeniable sovereign right to control the number of aliens who enter and stay in its territory, it is also subject to its obligations under national, European and international law. Policy choices that are in violation of those obligations are not beneficial, because once their arbitrariness is judicially established their financial and political costs are higher than any initial short-term benefits. Until four years ago, migrants could be detained for the purpose of removal for up to three (3) months, while more specific provisions limited the use of detention to particular circumstances where deportation was feasible16. In practice however, police authorities systematically detained all arrested migrants and exceeded the time-limit, by issuing consecutively more than one deportation decisions for the same migrant, each one of which set into motion a separate deportation and detention procedure. This meant that a migrant who had just been released because his removal was not feasible, could be arrested on his/her way out of the detention facility, served with a new deportation decision and led back inside to serve another three months – sometimes within less than one hour. The arbitrariness of this practice was criticised by the Greek Ombudsman for seeking to “regularise” a detention that έould otherέise find no support under the Greek laέ 17. Thus, Greece's very recent past in using detention as a main policy tool and trying to exceed the legal time-limits is a lesson to avoid, especially since there is little evidence that the 14 See ECtHR, S.D. v. Greece, Appl. No 53541/07, Judgment of 11 September 2009; A.A. v. Greece, Appl. no. 12186/08, Judgment of 22 July 2010; Tabesh v. Greece, Appl. no. 8256/07, Judgment of 26 November 2009; Rahimi v. Greece, Appl. No. 8687/08, Judgment of 5 April 2011. 15 See Misdemeanour Court of Igoumenitsa, Decision No 682/2012 of 2 October 2012, available at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzLLCPJMrNIEbnFDZUdaR3VoTHM/edit . 16 See law No 2910/2001, Art. 44 par. 3; see also Law No 3772/2009 Art. 48 that entered into force on 8 July 2009 raising the limit to 6 months. 17 See Greek Ombudsman, «Π μα: Δ α Απ Απ α η », September 2006, available at http://www.synigoros.gr/resources/_porisma_apelasi_21_01.pdf . 9