which she could not understand due to insufficient knowledge of the language. Moreover, the affected person was unable to immediately follow instructions for the same reason, which the employee interpreted as uncooperative behaviour. The woman was obviously very upset by her inability to communicate. The Federal Ministry of the Interior called the failure to deploy an interpreter a misunderstanding. Commission 6 criticised the fact that there were too few officials present during the simultaneous forced returns of three families with children. There should not have been three forced returns involving children at the same time – of which at least one was highly problematic due to massive resistance – with this number of officials. Despite the tension between preparing the affected persons and their right to personal liberty, the persons being removed must be afforded sufficient psychological preparation. The Federal Ministry of the Interior agreed with the view of the NPM. The Ministry stated that the deployment of more female officials or female counsellors during detention pending forced return would have been beneficial in this case. Inadequate preparation and too little support On the basis of the observations made by the commissions in Vienna, the NPM has repeatedly complained that the separation of families during forced returns and returns has been considered acceptable. Thus, in one case, the husband disappeared as the task force was attempting to return the wife and children to Poland. It is true that the return was interrupted; however, the NPM complained about the planned course of action by the authorities, which did not take Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) sufficiently into account. The NPM was pleased that the return was interrupted and postponed. The welfare of the children and the effect on family life must always be taken into consideration – even during actual (forced) returns. Under Art. 8 ECHR, in doubtful cases, the protection of children and family life must take precedence over the interests of the state in removing or deporting the family. However, the Federal Ministry of the Interior is not opposed to this, since every (forced) return must ultimately be subject to an individual case review. Separation of families The conversations of the commission with a single mother and her children also led to criticism. The NPM stressed that certain “information” – which may have been intended as factual – such as that resistance against the forced return could result in a criminal complaint and court proceedings, could be perceived by the affected person as threatening and intimidating in the difficult situation of a forced return. Even if this information is basically correct, it would be better – in the opinion of the NPM – to avoid such statements in such touchy situations. Empathy in conversations    Separating families during (forced) returns should be avoided. It is helpful to deploy additional female officials when deporting families with children. A psychiatric report and/or psychological preparation can prevent difficult situations. 139