The NPM also considered the lack of a case history for a person with a fear of flying and the failure to provide information regarding the possible side effects of a medication to counter his fear of flying to be problematic. Ultimately the medicine was not administered. The authorities should always give adequate consideration to the health care of chronically ill persons during (forced) returns. Following the suggestion of a commission, the NPM asked about the extent to which care on the other side of the border is taken into consideration in these official acts. Care for chronically ill The Federal Ministry of the Interior pointed out that medical needs must be communicated to the target state when persons are transferred to another EU member state under the Dublin III Regulation. With the consent of the affected person, a data sheet with all of the medical findings is sent to the target state. If the illness is severe, information regarding the individual care that is being given is provided. If there is a readmission agreement applicable to a forced return to a non-EU state, such an exchange of information may also be possible. Moreover, liaison officers can be deployed. When a forced return is made to a non-EU state with no such agreement, no such procedure is available from a legal standpoint. The jurisdiction of the Austrian authorities ends “at the border”. There is no legal basis for an exchange of sensitive health data or for influencing the healthcare provided in the target country and there is no ability to act in a sovereign manner in a foreign country. It should also be taken into consideration that drug-dependent persons, who have received substitution therapy in Austria, may not automatically take such medication with them when entering a foreign country. Criminal provisions may apply. Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly with respect to Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the proceeding prior to forced return must determine whether there is a possibility of treatment in the target country and thus whether measures to end the person’s stay in Austria are permissible. With respect to one instance of forced return, the commission complained about the uncoordinated process of receiving a family into the Zinnergasse family shelter in Vienna. This facility is not for detention pending forced return. Rather, more moderate measures are taken there. The family was initially confused with another family. Moreover, it was unclear whether an interpreter would come and, if so, which one. It was also unclear who was responsible for providing the food for the baby. The Federal Ministry of the Interior promised to investigate this case and sensitise the employees. During another forced return in Salzburg, the absence of an interpreter resulted in great uncertainty on the part of the person being removed. The Albanian woman was presented with documents in German, 138 Good communication is very important