Refugee Survey Quarterly  53 chose to provide or not to provide certain services, and what MSF was trying to achieve on a wider scale. An important part of this process involved informing beneficiaries that MSF was also involved in advocacy on detention conditions. This helped the beneficiaries understand that the organisation was not oblivious when it came to the structural causes of their suffering. Beneficiaries needed the injustice of their situation to be acknowledged, and they repeatedly asked MSF why they were put in prison if they were not considered to be criminals. In these circumstances, it was difficult for MSF workers not to position themselves – even indirectly – against the practice of immigration detention, and the witnessing aspect of MSF’s presence in the detention centres had a protective impact – indirectly protecting beneficiaries from ill treatment by security personnel. This was important for field staff, as it helped them resist the de-moralising effect of the ethical dilemmas discussed above, especially the fear that they were unintentionally complicit in the operation of the detention system. In this working environment, the principles of humanitarian action are put to the test every day. Aid workers are forced to question whether the compromise is justified. They are called to decide whether the gains, in terms of provided relief and assistance, out-weigh the risk of manipulation by the authorities, the sense that they are supporting a system that is causing harm to people, and the concession to humanitarian principles. In the end, however, it was the gains side of that delicate balance that weighed most, as it contained the provision of medical care and essential relief to a population that otherwise might not have access to it, a protective effect that came from witnessing, and the restoration of beneficiaries’ dignity. The last point on this list should not be underestimated, since the mere fact of treating the detained migrants in a humane and dignified way countered the widespread feeling amongst detainees that they had been forgotten and rejected by society. For many aid workers, this aspect of MSF’s action had perhaps the deepest humanitarian significance of all. 6. M S F’S A DVO C ACY W OR K O N D ET EN TI ON : D IL EM M A S, C H A L L E N G E S , A N D O P P O R T U NI T I ES Alongside working in immigration facilities, MSF engaged in advocacy in three main areas: 1) focusing on ways to ease the operational limitations inherent with working in a detention context; 2) putting pressure on the responsible authorities to provide humane detention conditions and dignified treatment; and 3) raising awareness about the suffering caused by the practice of immigration detention. These advocacy activities included quiet diplomacy and public communication. Quiet diplomacy was used to ensure access and autonomy for the organisation’s activities and for putting pressure on the authorities to provide dignified conditions for migrants in detention. Public communication was used to raise awareness of the deplorable conditions and, where needed, to speak out on the indifference of the relevant authorities. Advocacy work was not only complementary to the provision of direct assistance but a prerequisite for operations. It helped to ensure access to beneficiaries, to balance operational limitations, and to offset the risk of supporting the immigration detention system. In this respect, advocacy – and in particular its public