Block 1  When the communication about a forced return operation is given to the monitoring body;  Notice given to the returnee of their forced return;  The use of coercive measures;  The presence of social assistants and/or psychologists during return operations;  Complaint procedures available to returnees. Block 2  The choice of the flights to be monitored and the factors taken into consideration;  The number of monitors used during forced return operations and presence of figures of support (interpreters, doctors, psychologists, etc.);  Monitoring of the phases of arrival and reception in the country of return by local authorities;  The delivery of Recommendations and the results obtained;  The use of checklists during the monitoring phases;  The involvement of NGOs and the press by the Monitoring Body. Furthermore, three cases of particular interest were selected (Spain, Greece and Belgium) and the context, the legislation and the practices of these three States were analysed. The choice of these three specific countries was inspired on the one hand by the need to gather more information and explore contexts similar to the Italian one (Spain and Greece), on the other hand by the need to analyse a profoundly different context (Belgium). In the first two cases, in fact, the appointed monitoring body is the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), foreseen by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) of the United Nations, and for this reason independent bodies were chosen, competent in the field of deprivation of individual liberty. In the Belgian case, instead, the task of monitoring is entrusted to a body that is not independent as it is placed under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice. Finally, the second phase of the research and analysis activity involved the identification of best practices and recommendations, based on the material collected. The practices sampled were analysed in order to identify positive and transferable practices and formulate useful recommendations to support the work of the Guarantor. From a methodological point of view the strategy used in carrying out the activities was multifaceted and related to research and monitoring approaches closely dependent on the different contexts in which the team operated, on the conceptualization constructed during and after the research phase and on the connected “operationalization”, necessary for the processing and analysis of the data collected. With regard to the mapping operations, synthetic and exhaustive description tools were chosen; furthermore, data were processed and analysed from secondary sources, both as information sources themselves, providing direct and independent analytical and interpretative results, and as sources of support, completion and improvement of the implementation of the research. Finally, as described above, original data were collected, through the administration of an openended questionnaire, the answers to which were treated both descriptively and analytically.