In particular, 11 countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands) have decided to entrust this task to the National Preventive Mechanisms pursuant to the OPCAT. 7 In fact, accession to this Protocol provides that the State must have an independent National Preventive Mechanism for monitoring places of deprivation of personal liberty by means of visits and access to documents, in order to prevent any act of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 8 Other countries have instead decided to entrust the task of monitoring to bodies such as Internal Inspectorates, placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Justice. Germany, the Slovak Republic and Sweden deserve a separate specification, in that the bodies responsible for monitoring are part of the same office responsible for forced returns. For this reason these bodies cannot in general qualify as sufficiently independent and therefore “effective” pursuant to Article 8 paragraph 6 of the Directive on Returns. 9 Furthermore, in Germany the monitoring of forced returns is carried out in some areas by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which however do not cover the whole country (for which the Federal Office Migration and Refugees remains responsible). Another point worth noting is the relationship between the number of forced returns carried out by a Member State and the monitoring capacity of the appointed Bodies. Although it is not possible to make a direct comparison (the data available with respect to the work of the monitors refers to the number of operations monitored and not to the number of interested persons), this information can all the same be a starting point for evaluating the work of these bodies at European level. The country that carried out the highest number of monitoring operations in 2018, among those considered, is Belgium, with 96 operations monitored – covering 2,617 returns carried out during 2018 – even if for the most part (87 out of 96) only in the pre-return phase. The countries that follow are the Netherlands, Croatia and Austria, respectively with 62, 60 and 58 operations monitored in each phase. The countries that carried out the highest number of returns are Germany, with 26,114 forced returns and 30 monitored operations (of which 26 only in the pre-return phase), and Spain 11,713 returns and 16 monitored operations. 7Article 3 of the Protocol reads: “Each State Party shall set up, designate or maintain at the domestic level one or several visiting bodies for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (hereinafter referred to as the national preventive mechanism).” Adopted December 18, 2002 by Resolution A/RES/57/199 and entered into force on June 22, 2006, ratified by Italy on April 25, 2014. 8 Point 34 of the United Nations Guidelines on national preventive mechanisms NPM/CAT/op/12/5 of December 9, 2009: “The NPM should plan its work and its use of resources in such a way as to ensure that places of deprivation of liberty are visited in a manner and with sufficient frequency to make an effective contribution to the prevention torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 9 FRA, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Effective forced return monitoring system 2018, https://fra.europa.eu/en/theme/asylum-migration-borders