intercepted before setting them adrift towards the Turkish coast, so that they would not come back. Over the years, these practices became routine, systematic and brutal. Such deterrence measures were not the authorities’ only ‘weapons’ to tame irregular migration. In fact, as attested by a number of human rights organisations reports, most of the apprehensions in the border region during that period were not recorded at all; hence, official figures showing only the tip of the iceberg (Human Rights Watch, 2008; Norwegian Hesinki Committee et al., 2009; ProAsyl, 2007). Under ‘Poseidon plan’, the coastguard, in cooperation with local authorities, would establish temporary holding centres in schools, warehouses or other public buildings, to detain migrants for a period of days without registering them, before summarily expelling them (CPT, 2006). As one of my interviewees explained, registers of new arrivals at border guard stations were often handwritten and during her visits there she had personally seen correction fluid used at the police custody registry books. This is corroborated by CPT findings in 2005, 2007 and 2009, when the delegation found the existing registers ‘superficial and on occasion incomplete or inexact’ (CPT, 2006, p. 25; see also CPT, 2008 and CPT, 2010). In some stations, staff were not even aware of the exact number of persons detained or even outrightly lied about a centre’s capacity. For example, in 2005, the CPT delegation was informed that a certain border guard station was closed but when visited, it contained more than 100 people and according to them it had been operating for quite some time (CPT, 2006). The secrecy surrounding official practices also extends to the amount of access granted to human rights organisations and the detainees’ access to the outside world. With respect to the latter, reports highlight that in some centres there were no pay phones and as a rule, mobile phones were confiscated in all facilities. Amnesty International (2012a) confirms that access to some of the detention centres was denied to them, while in others, officers refused to answer questions or remain outside hearing range. In fact, apart from UNHCR and the Greek Council for Refugees, no other NGO had been able to access detention centres despite repeated requests for permission (see also Schaub, 2013). Access to lawyers was restricted and only with the provision of specific names of detained persons. What is more, Amnesty International’s request for information on the number and location of detention centres in the country was left unanswered. Despite the competence of the Greek Ombudsman to carry out monitoring visits, up until 2009 there were few signs of any independent body supervising places of detention. 81