Rights, both with manner in which detention policy; practices, in line Member States.79 regards to the conditions of detention and the arbitrariness and automatic migrants were deprived of their liberty.78 Nonetheless, Greece upheld its it carried out a series of legislative amendments, in order to ‘legalise’ its with a toughening policy towards irregular migrants followed by other Among the most noteworthy developments was the gradual expansion of the maximum allowed period of detention, from three (3) months to 18 months. In terms of the grounds of detention, a controversial amendment in 201280 specified that persons who suffer from a contagious disease, or are at increased risk of contracting them- either because of the situation in their country of origin or because they live under unhygienic conditions -are “dangerous to public order” and may also be detained.81 In 2013, the use of systematic and indefinite detention became formally Greece's policy priority, publicly announcing that “Our aim is that every illegal migrant, unless the competent authorities decide that he is entitled to international protection, will be detained until he is returned to his home country” 82. A few months later, the concept of indefinite detention was also formally introduced into the Greek legal order via a rather controversial advisory opinion of the Council of State.83 According to the Greek authorities, the main reason behind this new policy was that shorter detention time and release before executing an expulsion/return were deemed ineffective in securing the removal of the third country national. Statistics in the last three years showed that an estimated 30% of all migrants apprehended at the borders or the mainland, i.e. almost 93,000, were residing irregularly in Greece, with a pending expulsion decision. These migrants did not apply for international protection nor were they under a return procedure.84 If, however, detention capacity increased, this would achieve a 78 See ECtHR, 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 79 80 See Claire de Senarclens, Forced Migration Review, fall 2013, Issue 44, page 60 Law 4075/2012 81 So far there has been reluctance to apply this provision in the context of irregular migration. Instead, the most frequently used justification, applicable in an automatic manner, is that the migrant “lacks the necessary travel documents, has no permanent residence and is likely to abscond” 82 See Minister of Citizen Protection, Press Office Reply concerning the events at Amygdaleza, 11 August 2013, availa ble at http://www.yptp.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&lang=GR&perform=view&id=4736&Itemid=579 (Our translation of Greek original: “Στόχος μας είναι κάθε παράνομος μετανάστης, εφόσον τα αρμόδια όργανα κρίνουν ότι δεν δικαιούται διεθνούς προστασίας, να κρατείται μέχρι να επιστρέψει στην πατρίδα του.”) ; (emphasis added) 83 This measure is expected to be revoked in the coming weeks 84 See Ministry of Citizen Protection, Revised Greek Action Plan on Asylum and Migration Management, 2013, p. 53 Page 40