Oversight mechanisms These bodies have drawn attention to many different issues, ranging from access to education for children in detention395 to access to fresh air.396 In Lithuania, the Ombudsmen noted that in the section dedicated to unaccompanied children, the few available information stands only offered information in Lithuanian.397 In Poland, the Commissioner for Human Rights recently expressed its worry about the fact that the Guarded Centre for Foreigners in Kętrzyn did not have a permanently employed paediatrician, considering that the centre is mostly for families with children and unaccompanied children.398 In France, the General Controller of Places of Deprivation of Liberty conducted an on-site assessment of the facilities in which an Albanian family, a mother and her two young children, were held. It noted that the treatment of the mother and children was satisfactory – but recommended, for example, placing young children in car seats during transfers due to safety reasons.399 Finally, in the Czech Republic, the Public Defender of Rights recommended the termination of permanent surveillance of the living quarters by the security agency in the Detention Centre for Foreigners Bělá-Jezová.400 In addition to the National Preventive Mechanisms under OPCAT, other independent human rights bodies can also oversee children in immigration detention. In Cyprus, for example, the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child documented the systematic detention of 395 Poland, Commissioner for Human Rights (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) (2013), Realizacja prawa małoletnich cudzoziemców do edukacji, Warsaw, Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, pp. 45. 396 Šelih, I., and Kalčina, L. (eds) Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia on the Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism for the year 2014 (Poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije o izvajanju nalog in pooblastil Državnega preventivnega mehanizma za leto 2014) Lubljana, The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia, p. 133. 397 The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania (2016) 2014-2015 Report on National Prevention of Torture, Vilnius, The Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, p. 32. 398 Poland, National Preventive Mechanism (2016) Report of the National Preventive Mechanism on the visit to the Guarded Centre for Foreigners in Kętrzyn (Raport Krajowego Mechanizmu Prewencji Tortur z wizytacji Strzeżonego Ośrodka dla Cudzoziemców w Kętrzynie) Warsaw, National Preventive Mechanism, 30 January 2017, p. 12. 399 France, Hazan, Adeline (Contrôleure générale des lieux de privation de liberté) (2015), Report of the investigation on the placement of families in administrative detention centres (Rapport d’ enquête sur les placements de familles en centre de rétention administrative), Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté, July 2015, p.7. See also: Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté (2016), Annual report 2015. , p. 95. 400 Czech Republic, Public Defender of Rights, Report on Visit to the Detention of Foreigners Bělá-Jezová, 22 December 2016, p. 9. unaccompanied children before 2014. The report helped change policy and reduce instances of child detention.401 Finally, civil society organisations, charities and volunteers working in detention facilities also play an important role in ensuring some scrutiny of detention conditions, often alleviating the suffering of the most vulnerable. 8.2. Child protection authorities The principle of the best interests of the child requires Member States to take proactive measures, ensuring that legislation, policies and practices at all levels of government give it primary consideration (Section 1.3). In addition, it requires Member States to carefully assess the impact of detention on the right to respect for family life before depriving a child or their parents of liberty. The assessment must consider the short- and long-term impacts on the child, including possible detrimental effects. Assessing this requires child protection expertise. Although staff in direct contact with children should have specialised training and skills (Section 6.2), in practice, child protection capacity in migration detention facilities is limited, research shows. Only a few Member States have social workers in the detention facilities (usually those that host families), for example Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary and the Netherlands. • In the Belgian detention centre La Caricole, each family has a  reference person who is a  social worker.402 • The social workers in detention facilities in the Czech Republic work directly for the Refugee Facilities Administration of the Ministry of the Interior and are responsible for, inter alia, identifying victims of human trafficking.403 • In Hungary, social workers call in the child protection authority if they observe child abuse, serious neglect or any other serious threats to the child or serious danger.404 401 Cyprus, Commissioner for the Rights of the Child (2014), Position of the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child Leda Koursoumba regarding the first instance handling of unaccompanied minor- Findings from the investigation of complaints, from NGO consultations and from interviews with unaccompanied minors, File No. G.E.P. 11.11.44.01, November 2014. 402 Belgium, Jesuit Refugee Service. 403 Czech Republic, Communication with the Methodology Department of the Refugees Facilities Administration of the Ministry of the Interior (Oddělení metodiky, Správa uprchlických zařízení MV). 404 Hungary, Ministry of the Interior (2013) ‘Ministry of the Interior Decree 29/2013 (VI 28) on Rules Implementing Asylum Detention and Asylum Bail’, Section 19. 91