or inhuman treatment by private individuals rather than a state official, the ECtHR highlighted the responsibility imposed on states to put in place preventive measures that protect individuals under their jurisdiction from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, whatever the source of that ill-treatment might be. 81 These measures should provide effective protection, in particular for children and other vulnerable persons, and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge. 82 for the Prevention of Torture, 85 organises periodic visits to places where people are deprived of their liberty or freedom and issues reports containing recommendations. Places visited include, among others, immigration detention centres, psychiatric hospitals or social care facilities. Legislation in all EU Member States contains safeguards to ensure that force is only used when necessary and proportionate. These safeguards are also applicable in the context of border management or initial registration and reception of asylum seekers. In the Netherlands, for example, according to the Ministry of Security and Justice, the use of force by state actors must always be limited to a minimum. It must always be proportionate and justifiable, in line with the ‘violence instruction’ (geweldsinstructie) 83 of the services. However, legislation alone – even if accompanied by concrete guidance – is not sufficient to prevent abuse. As described above under ‘identification’, staff need to be adequately trained to enable them to handle difficult situations. Moreover, effective monitoring and complaint mechanisms must be in place. Issues raised by these monitoring bodies include, for instance, the use of force, safeguards against ill-treatment and the conditions of detention. For example, in its report to the Government of the Netherlands, the CPT remarked on the conditions of the penitentiary psychiatric centres, where immigration detainees may also be kept, and invited the government to increase the role of the Ministry of Health. 86 Similarly, the CPT observed the treatment of foreign nationals during a joint removal operation between Spain and Germany, as coordinated by Frontex, in which individuals were transferred from Spain to Colombia. It noted that it did not observe any instances of ill-treatment of the returnees but recommended that returnees are informed several days in advance of their impending return flight. 87 Table 2 provides an overview of the work of these two Committees in the EU Member States covered by this report during the past year. Between 1 January 2016 and 31 January 2017, the CPT visited four EU Member States and the UN Committee reviewed reports by three EU Member States. Monitoring bodies Such supra-national bodies are complemented by National Preventive Mechanisms set up under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT). 88 The Protocol requires each signatory State to “maintain, designate or establish, one or several independent national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture at the domestic level”. 89 Monitoring mechanisms help ensure that Member States comply with their obligations to prevent torture, abuse or any other form of excessive violence. All signatory States to the United Nations Convention against Torture must submit regular reports to the UN Committee against Torture, which issues Concluding Observations. 84 They cover positive aspects, remarks and recommendations for each State to ensure the fulfilment of its obligations, including prevention. In addition, specially created monitoring bodies undertake field visits: at the European level, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe (CPT), as set up by the European Convention  As shown in Table 3, all EU Member States covered in this report, except for Slovakia, have National Preventive Mechanisms that were set up under Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT). 9