C. Safeguarding human rights The challenge of the refugee crisis 4.3. The Greek Ombudsman’s conclusions The Greek Ombudsman had the opportunity to visit numerous facilities on the mainland and the facilities on the five islands. With the opportunity of these visits, the Ombudsman’s teams held meetings with the local authorities, usually the mayor, relevant Vice-mayors, the chief of the police and (on the islands) the port authorities, the local solidarity movements and representatives of international organisations active on this subject. The main findings regarding the relationships of refugees/migrants with the local community are the following, per thematic group: Most reactions, based on arguments from the area of economy, to the sudden arrival of thousands of migrants/refugees, were seen on the five islands of the Aegean, particularly in areas where a significant part of the economy is based on the revenues mainly from the stay of foreign tourists. In Kos, for example, where the local economy literally depends on the summer arrivals of Europeans and Americans, the reactions were stronger. In Lesvos, where a large part of the economic activity is based on agricultural production, processing and trade, the reactions were milder. Thus, the local public opinion varied from simple concern to strong displeasure on the negative image, which according to the local Press, the island was acquiring from the presence of thousands of refugees/ migrants. Based on these characteristics, in the case of the five islands, the reactions recorded were not a classic case of xenophobia, but a kind of intolerance of the impoverished individual. The local community was in fact used to the presence of foreigners, which of course it desired and still desires. A part however of the local community preferred the foreigners to be holidaymakers, which means that they are basically well-off and carry out economic transactions on the island. It would be particularly interesting to study the reaction of this portion of the public opinion to the temporary accommodation model, according to which each refugee/ migrant is offered accommodation in a rental apartment or room, and granted an amount, which is spent for food and other needs. Economy We also observed exploitation phenomena of the third-country nationals (overpricing of goods and services) due to the distance and movement restriction, such as charging excessive amounts for charging cell phones, sale of fruit and water outside the temporary accommodation sites, transport by taxi or private car for a fee, etc. At the same time, there were reactions by part of the local community mainly for the 70 installation and, sometimes, even for the removal of accommodation facilities from areas of the islands and the mainland. A typical example is that of Eidomeni, where local farmers complained about adverse consequences on their crops from the creation of the unofficial camp, while local entrepreneurs (restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, etc.) complained about the dramatic drop in their economic activity after the evacuation of the third-country nationals and the shutting down of the camp. Issues of (in) security The sudden, unplanned arrival of tens of thousands of people with special and urgent needs, and distinct characteristics, in geographically restricted spaces, such as Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Leros and Kos, put to the test the capability of response and the adaptability of the local authorities, facilities and communities. In any event, an emergency situation could not be perceived as normality. The more or less accepted tolerability of local communities who were used to live alongside “foreigners”, who were mainly tourists, was quickly put to the test however, when it was found that the inadequate local accommodation facilities for refugees and migrants, and the continuing arrivals over a span of many months of large numbers of third-country nationals, were leading many of the newcomers to literally sleep and live on the street and the squares, for days or weeks, before taken to another temporary facility as an emergency solution. This seemed to confirm the suspicions of the few who were in any case predisposed against the refugees/migrants, and to create insecurity in those who initially displayed good faith. The sporadic incidents in the squares and the ports of the island capitals started to increase in frequency, and the few cases of reports of thefts or attacks were blown out of proportion and quickly spread in a population that was worried about what it perceived as an extra burden, to the one already accumulated from the financial hardships, essentially experiencing a crisis within the crisis. The size of the problem, as it was perceived by the local community and reflected through the magnifying glass of certain local media, intensified the State’s inability to foresee in time, to effectively address, to convincingly explain, and to assure the local community that the emergency has an end on the horizon and there is an efficient plan for addressing it. When for example the local police, in 2015 and for a large part of 2016 was forced to use its entire force to essentially manage the massive and unplanned arrival of third-country nationals, frequently substituting for other services, this