The appalling conditions of Greek detention facilities, as the descriptions of several facilities below illustrate, have 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. This history of consistently poor conditions was highlighted by the CPT after its visit to the country in 2011: “The reports on the 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009 visits all paint a similar picture of irregular migrants being held in very poor conditions in police stations and other ill-adapted premises, often disused warehouses, for periods of up to six months, and even longer, with no access to outdoor exercise, no other activities and inadequate health-care provision. Recommendations to improve the situation nevertheless continued to be ignored. Despite significant numbers of irregular migrants entering Greece via its eastern land and sea borders over a period of years, no steps were taken to put in place a coordinated and acceptable approach as regards their detention and treatment” (CPT 2011). Nearly two years after this CPT visit, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Human Rights of Migrants found that similar conditions persisted, reporting: “In some of the detention facilities, the migrants had limited access to toilets; some facilities had no artificial lighting so that during the winter, migrants were in the dark from early afternoon. Most of the detention facilities visited lacked heating and hot water and the detainees complained about insufficient amounts and poor quality of food, lack of soap and other hygiene products, as well as insufficient clothing, shoes and blankets. The medical services offered in some of the facilities by KEELPNO (Hellenic Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) were highly insufficient. Some of the centres had no permanent medical staff, and relied on daily visits by KEELPNO only” (SRHRM 2013). Greece has repeatedly responded to criticism by stating that it requires external assistance to address problems in its facilities. Thus, for instance, in their official response to the CPT’s report after its 2005 visit, Greek authorities stated: “The construction, repair and leasing of recording and management establishments for migrants will be financed by the European External Borders Fund. Resources are sought from European Funds, such as the Refugees Fund and other European Programs similar to the ‘Aegeas’ project in order to cover the operational costs of the centers. Our objective is to respond and fulfill in the best possible manner our obligations to migrants, on the basis of the requirements of our Republic and our timeless civilization.” The EU has been forthcoming in its assistance. According to a 2013 report by the PACE: “During the period of 2011-2013, Greece received 98.6 million euros under the Return Fund, 132.8 million euros under the External Border Fund and 19.95 million euros under the European Refugee Fund. The focus of funding was thus on border control and detention measures, to the detriment of the protection measures” (PACE 2013). Efforts to get comprehensive information about where people in Greece are detained are complicated by the fact that relevant government bodies do not appear to have complete information, or otherwise seem reluctant to divulge this information. For instance, in response to a freedom of information request lodged last year as part of a joint GDP12