Summary
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodological note .............................................................................................................................................. 6
1. The Italian case: institutional framework............................................................................................. 9
1.1 The activity of the National Guarantor ...............................................................................................11
2. Monitoring bodies in Europe ..................................................................................................................... 13
3. Cross-section analysis of some aspects considered crucial for the monitoring of
forced returns at European level…...…………………………………………………………………………..45
3.1 Notice of the implementation of forced returns communicated by police authorities to
the body responsible for the monitoring activity .................................................................................. 44
3.2 Notice given to the returnee of their forced return .......................................................................44
3.3 Use of coercive measures ......................................................................................................................... 45
3.4 Presence of social workers and/or psychologists during return operations ......................49
3.5 Complaint tools available to returnees ............................................................................................... 50
3.6 Choice of flights to monitor. Factors taken into consideration .................................................51
3.7 Number of monitors employed during forced return operations and presence of
support figures (interpreters, medical staff, psychologists, etc.) .................................................... 52
3.8 Post-return monitoring............................................................................................................................. 52
3.9 Communication of recommendations and results achieved ......................................................53
3.10 Use of checklists during the monitoring phases ........................................................................... 55
3.11 Involvement of NGOs and the press by the monitoring body ................................................. 55
4. In-depth examination of Belgium, Spain, Greece ............................................................................57
4.1 Belgium ...........................................................................................................................................................57
4.2 Spain .................................................................................................................................................................60
4.3 Greece .............................................................................................................................................................. 63
5. Conclusions and best practices .................................................................................................................69