5. Conclusions and best practices This review has allowed to highlight some important aspects recorded at European level by the teams in charge of monitoring forced return operations. In general we may note that: 1. The authorities carrying out return operations communicate the departure of the flights to the guaranteeing authorities at least a week in advance in different European countries (e.g. Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, Slovenia) or even communicate the annual planning of operations (Greece), so as to allow better organization and implementation of monitoring. In other countries, this term is much shorter (e.g. in Italy - 48 hours of notice). 2. In general, returnees are informed of the departure with too short a notice period. On this point, almost all monitoring bodies have made numerous recommendations. 3. Coercion measures are often overused by escorts. The monitoring reports, at European level, have repeatedly made recommendations on the most critical aspects identified, pointing to how the indiscriminate use of restrictive measures violates the rights and human dignity of returnees. Recommendations by the European monitors always advocate the use of such measures in respect of dignity and human rights and only if reasonable, proportionate and necessary. 4. Most of the European monitors report that, in general, there are no figures such as psychologists or cultural linguistic mediators (except in specific cases) who accompany escorts during the return operations. 5. Almost all European monitors report the lack of territorial competence in monitoring the post-return phase. The monitoring activity therefore ends with the handover of third country nationals to local authorities, which often takes place directly on the aircraft, despite the Common Guidelines on safety provisions applicable to joint removal by air, annexed to the Council Decision No. 57 of 29 April 2004 on the organization of so-called joint flights, prescribe that this should take place in dedicated premises of the airport of arrival and that, therefore, handover to local authorities should not be made on board the same transport carrier. 6. In general, European monitors prefer to monitor joint flights organized by Frontex. Furthermore, the flights that involve the repatriation of vulnerable subjects and minors or flights to certain third countries (Afghanistan, Armenia, Egypt, Georgia, Ghana, Iraq, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkey) are also monitored. 7. Monitors participating in return operations are generally 1 or 2. In some countries, monitors speak multiple languages. 8. The recommendations sent by European monitors are generally accepted and implemented by the authorities responsible for organizing and carrying out return operations. 9. Returnees are almost never made aware of the complaint mechanisms provided for by the Frontex Code of Conduct. 10. At European level, the use of the checklists and other tools for collecting information by monitors differs.