According to a report released in October 2016 by NGO AITIMA, drawing on a project that involved monitoring visits to detention centres in Greece, there were still longstanding systemic problems, no different to what human rights organisations had castigated Greece for in the past. In fact, they arose from a well-known mixture of pleasing the EU, appeasing public opinion, and attempting to deter prospective arrivals. Based on 31 monitoring visits to detention centres conducted over one year, the analysis of 277 individual cases and interviews with competent authorities the research team observed, among others, the use of inappropriate detention areas, lack of outdoor time, recreational activities and interpretation services, inadequate healthcare, social and psychological support, detention of minors and seriously ill persons and the sheer lack of information regarding the case. Furthermore, Amnesty International at a press meeting in October 2016, claimed that detention conditions on the islands were purposefully bad to deter prospective arrivals, alluding to former practices described in this and the previous chapter (Huffington Post Greece, 2016; see also Amnesty International, 2016). Many refugee camps were also full to capacity and host to a range of problems. Almost half of the new sites were created in under ten days, some in very remote locations with little to no access to legal aid, limited access to services and support, and hardly any information offered about their status. Conditions in most open centres fell below international humanitarian standards, to the point where some had been characterised as even ‘unfit for animals’ (Human Rights Watch, 2016). The Greek army has played a lead role in setting up most of the facilities covering mainly catering services, receiving complaints not just about the quality of the food but also due to rumors of corruption following the deals made with the catering companies. As Daniel Howden and Apostolis Fotiadis (2017) report, $74 million was added to the defense ministry budget for refugee support. All the above had long been a source of intense criticism from both domestic and international observers, as well as the subject of numerous cases at the European Court of Human Rights. What was relatively new, however, was intensified confusion on the ground, reflecting improvised nature of reactive (EU) immigration policies and their implementation. Who was detained, where, for what reasons, and for how long, were questions that no one could answer. Your quality of experience depended on where you had been placed, and where you had been placed was down to luck. It was also unclear as to which part of the government was responsible for running open and closed facilities. Even the Action Plan presented by the Greek authorities in the beginning of March 2016 119