European Union, which has progressively built a comprehensive framework to operationalize ‘effective returns’.28 In practice, the nature of those forced returns often involves the use of coercive measures and therefore entails high risks for the protection of individuals against ill-treatment. In recent years, particularly in Western countries, there has been a policy shift towards facilitating the ‘speedy return’ of undocumented migrants, including refused asylum seekers. This is evident in the European Union, which has progressively built a comprehensive framework to operationalize ‘effective returns’.29 Determining return as a priority in the EU’s external action has led to a number of policies without proper consideration of human rights implications and significant consultation with stakeholders. Outside the EU, fair and consistent migration and asylum systems which properly consider individual circumstances, including the above-mentioned human rights principles and especially the non-refoulement clause, must also be reinforced. Participants discussed that the issues at stake are manifold: challenges with the provision of nonrefoulement and cases where forcibly returned individuals endured torture and other ill-treatment upon their return; lack of information or last-minute information about the return modalities and timing, including for detainees themselves; lack of access to procedures and appeals, especially in cases of returns by land which can be immediate; excessive use of force, including restraints and lack of individual assessments to justify these; absence of consideration of specific vulnerabilities (in case of children for instance). It became clear during the discussion that in light of those risks, NPMs in several countries have started to regularly monitor return procedures, including, for some of them, actual return flights. They have developed solid methodologies and dedicated many efforts to it, also to tackle the challenge of often not being able to access advance information on the planned returns. The monitoring of return flights is particularly time- and resource-intensive, beyond being very challenging in the absence of advance information about the planning of returns. Nevertheless, some NPMs have successfully monitored those situations, issued recommendations and improved the conditions of such forced returns. NPMs also try to make sure that their monitoring includes the follow-up to cancelled forced return procedures - including medical screenings - and the follow-up to the deportation process, after the return of a migrant to his/her country of origin, which can be challenging in certain contexts. II. Joining forces to prevent torture in immigration detention: good practices identified A. Modalities NPMs and CSOs are two key actors in the prevention of torture. Where communication and coordination are established, they complement each other’s mandates and means of action, increasing the protection for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, including migrants in detention. Those include among others: the EU “Return Directive” (currently proposed to be reviewed or ‘recasted’) and the EU Action Plan on Return and the Migration Partnership Frameworks as part of its foreign policy. 28 15