definition, unable to produce the documents or obtain the permissions normally required to secure lawful permission to enter a country, because of the circumstances of their flight. Questions for discussion: 1) What are immigration detainees’ access, in practice, to an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of the deprivation of their liberty and what are the challenges related to it, including enjoyment of the rights to access a lawyer, doctor, notification of a third party and to consular assistance? 2) What are the needs of specific groups or persons in situation of particular vulnerability in immigration detention that ought to be considered? How can NPMs and CSOs address those needs? 3) How do NPMs and CSOs monitor the legality of immigration detention? What are the challenges faced in doing so? 4) What are successful examples of alternatives to detention and how can NPMs and CSOs contribute to their development? Working Group 2: Forced returns Forced return, or deportation, is defined as the compulsory return of an individual to the country of origin, transit or a third country on the basis of an administrative or judicial order. While the right to regulate the entry, stay and removal of foreigners in their territory is a sovereign right of nation-states, these are subjected to a number of principles of international human rights law. These include the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ enshrined in Art 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention and Art 3 of the Convention against Torture, which prohibits the extradition and removal of a person to a country, or further removed to a subsequent country, where they may be subjected to torture, inhumane treatment, or persecution. 39 Despite these principles, and their operationalisation being clearly defined in a number of instruments and communications, returns regularly take place in violation of rights of those being deported. In practice, the nature of those forced returns often involves the use of coercive measures and therefore entails high risks for the protection of persons against ill-treatment. In light of those risks, NPMs in several countries have been regularly monitoring return flights. 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. Nowhere is this more evident than in the European Union, which has progressively built a comprehensive framework to operationalise ‘effective returns.’40 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. Furthermore, the current shift on return practice has seen a move-away from a thorough understanding and application of the best interest of the child principle. It is commonly understood that when children are affected by return orders, be them accompanied or not, States have an obligation to identify durable solutions to safeguard the rights of the child. Currently, this is not fully accounted for in the design of policies nor in the process of determining whether a return order should be signed or at the implementation stage. Questions for discussion: 1) What are the risks of ill-treatment related to the practice of forced returns? 39 Furthermore, returns are also subject to the principles of prohibition of collective expulsion, the prohibition of forced labour and the respect of the right to life. 40 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. 20