was asked to provide additional documents, showing the following: some plans of intervention, drawn up after the visit of the representatives of the Field regarding prevention of torture in detention places, involved the head teacher from the Italian school and the host family, but they had not signed the individual intervention plan, so they were not aware of it. Also pursuant to the visit and the requests to DGASPC Prahova, affidavits of the families where some children lived were sent, stipulating that the minors lived with them, that they had completed their primary school cycles and that they would cover all living expenditure (education, transportation, health, etc.). Brief descriptions from Italian psychologists (of August 2018) were added, generally stipulating that the “minors were integrated at a family, school and social level”. Since: the beneficiaries were under a placement measure at the “Casa Sperantei” Association of Campina and benefitted from social services within DGASPC Prahova, but some of them did not go back to the country for at least 12 months; individual protection plans, affidavits of the host families, psychological descriptions were drawn up pursuant to the visit and upon request of the visit team. The People’s Advocate provided recommendations both to the representatives of the visited unit and to DGASPC Prahova, regarding the check of the situation of minors leaving to study abroad. Furthermore, the National Child Protection Authority was notified on the found aspects and the required actions. DGASPC Prahova informed, in its answer to the People’s Advocate Institution, that the recommendations were pending implementation, and ANPDCA informed the People’s Advocate Institution that checks of the shown issues were decided, so that information could be sent regarding the obtained results and, as the case may be, measures could be decided according to the attributions of the institution, established through the normative acts in force. Until the elaboration of this report, the representatives of the “Casa Sperantei” Association of Campina, Prahova county did not answer the recommendations included in the visit report. 53