Special Interest Sites in Deprivation of Liberty 239. Subsequently, the documentation was checked, specifically the existence of a passport or travel document and administrative or judicial resolution of expul­ sion or repatriation. All of the deportees had passports except one, who had been issued a travel document or safe-conduct. If the lack of obligatory documentation had been detected, the repatriation would have been suspended. Once these for­ malities had terminated, the order was given to start taking the deportees out of the vehicles. From that point on the procedure consisted of taking out the luggage from one of the vehicles, after which the foreign nationals came out one by one in order to be identified. A police agent asked each one his/her name and national­ ity and checked it on a list, telling another agent out loud the number that had been previously assigned to that person. The second agent checked the photo­ graphs he had of the person named in order to make a visual verification. Once this had been checked, a label was stuck onto the deportee’s clothes with his/her name and assigned number. Subsequently the deportee was asked to identify his/ her luggage, which was labeled with the assigned number and nationality and then stored in the plane’s hold. The documentation and 240. With respect to body and clothing searches, they were of the same inten­ sity and characteristics as the ones described in paragraph 224, the returnees being informed of the objects and clothes they could not take with them, which were placed in bags identified in their presence with the owner’s names. Regulated searches were 241. In contrast with the means of restraint referred to earlier in the description of the FRONTEX operation, in this case all of the deportees, with the exception of the minor and his father, had their wrists tied with pieces of fabric. These ties were removed for the body searches and then used again when the searches fin­ ished, with deportees keeping them on until they boarded the plane. On boarding the restraints 242. A physician and a registered nurse from the Regional Healthcare Unit of the Superior Police Department of Castile y Leon-Valladolid were in charge of medical care during this operation. They declared that they participated in two flights of this kind every year. On arrival at the Central Unit for Deportation and Repatriation premises they examined some of the deportees from the Madrid Immigrant Detention Center who were diabetic, as well as the medical documen­ tation that had been prepared in that respect by the Immigrant Detention Center’s medical staff. After checking that a specific medication for a type of diabetes was missing, the physician wrote out a prescription and handed it to a police agent asking that he go buy it. The inspection team was told that medical personnel is not informed sufficiently in advance of the type of medical circumstances they are going to be dealing with, which should be corrected to prevent any incident that could occur during the flight and to ensure that all necessary medical and pharmacological material is available. Moreover, and without questioning the professionalism and experience of the medical team, the criteria that should be followed is to guarantee the independence and impartiality of the medical per­ sonnel that intervene in repatriation operations by incorporating medical per­ sonnel that does not belong to the Directorate General of the Police. Medical personnel should THE OMBUDSMAN OF SPAIN identity of the returnees was checked performed were removed be aware of medical circumstances in advance 161