public statement by the Committee on the Prevention of Torture and a series of convicting judgments by the European Court of Human Rights18 provided fertile ground for the development of a discourse that focused on the inhuman side of Greece's migration policy. Through this humanitarian lens, effective migration management means effective protection of human rights. There is little doubt that Greece has in recent years struggled to adequately respond to an admittedly large influx of irregular arrivals. Yet while ample has been written on Greece's apparent difficulty in treating third country nationals with respect, less attention has been paid to the financial considerations steering Greece's practices. Little is known for instance on national expenditures and available budget. The authorities have at times provided figures, such as the recent announcement by the Ministry of Mercantile Marine that sea patrols in the Aegean are expected to cost 76 million euros in 2014. 19 Yet in the absence of the wider context, these figures are of little use to the current discourse. Even less is known on the exact distribution of the available resources takes place. On the one hand, Greece seems unable to financially sustain an effective asylum system. Already in its first year of operation, 2013-2014, the new Asylum Service has had to also rely on voluntary work and assistance by UNHCR to cover its needs for interpreters. 20 The country also has trouble providing adequate shelters for unaccompanied minors, as a result of which many are left to survive in destitution and homelessness.21 On the other hand, millions of euros were set aside to erect the 12-km fence along the GreekTurkish border. Resources were also found to cover the running costs of Amygdaleza pre-removal centre, an 'exemplary' detention facility which costs 10,5 million per year. 22 In many respects, 18 See S.D. v. Greece, Appl. No 53541/07, Judgment of 11 September 2009; A.A. v. Greece, Appl. no. 12186/08, Judgment of 22 July 2010; Tabesh v. Greece, Appl. no. 8256/07, Judgment of 26 November 2009; Rahimi v. Greece, Appl. No. 8687/08, Judgment of 5 April 2011; R. U. v. Greece, Appl. no. 2237/08, Judgment of 7 June 2011 19 Data provided by the Ministry of Mercantile Marine aduring Press Conference, 04 September 2014; see also R. Maltezou and D. Kyvrikosaios, “Greece says in 'danger zone' from influx of Syrian, Iraqi Refugees”, 4 September 2014, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/greece-immigration-idUSL5N0R516420140904 ; see also the rather evasive answer concerning the costs of running Amygdaleza Pre-removal centre, Minister of Citizen Protection, Parliamentary Reply of 3 February 2014, available at http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/67715b2c-ec81-4f0cad6a-476a34d732bd/8341922.pdf; see also staement by Minister of Citizen Protection, Parliamentary Discussion of 22 October 2012, p.2934, available at http://www.hellenicparliament.gr/UserFiles/a08fc2dd-61a9-4a83-b09a09f4c564609d/es20121022.pdf 20 See G. Palaiologos, “Assistance in a Language Migrants can understand”, Kathimerini newspaper, 27 July 2013, http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite6_1_13/08/2013_513995 21 See S. Troller, “Left to Survive: Systematic Failure to Protect Unaccompanied Minor Children in Greece”, Human Rights Watch, 2008, available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/12/22/left-survive 22 See A. Triandafyllidou and D. Angeli, “Is the indiscriminate detention of irregular migrants a cost-effective policy tool? The case-study of Amygdaleza Pre-Removal Centre”, Midas Policy Brief, May 2014, available at http://www.eliamep.gr/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Policy-brief_the-case-study-of-Amygdaleza-1.pdf Page 12