Almost all national bodies have declared they are The Italian National Guarantor has no not required or are unable to carry out checks and direct experience of post-return monitor the landing phase and the operations monitoring or collaboration with the immediately following arrival in the countries of Ombudsman or similar institution in the origin. Only the British IMBs declare that, during countries of return. However, it the monitoring of charter flights and only for some considers this activity of particular countries, the monitor is allowed to observe the importance and is interested in the landing in the terminal and the handover of possibility of activating collaborations. returnees to local authorities. Among the instances of monitoring the phase following handover of returnees to the authorities of the countries of origin, however, the Swiss NCPT started a project in January 2019 in collaboration with the NPM of Kosovo, to assess the post-return phase of returnees and in particular their treatment once they arrive at the airport. The Kosovo NPM monitor is informed by the Swiss NCPT so that it can be present during the take-over of the local authorities at the time of landing. The Spanish Defensor del Pueblo also has experience in this type of collaboration: on the occasion of Frontex operations organized by its country, in fact, the organization contacts the local Guarantor or the Ombudsman, where present, to inform it of the arrival of the flight, communicating the number of returnees and the time of arrival, so as to allow monitoring of the phase of landing and re-entry. 3.9 Communication of recommendations and results achieved The institutions of European countries responsible for monitoring forced returns are required to produce and send an annual Report or a direct report to Parliament and to the heads of the Authorities responsible for carrying out the return operations. This Report usually details and elaborates both qualitative and quantitative data collected during the monitoring missions carried out and generally ends with recommendations and best practices, with the aim of improving the conditions of returnees in compliance with European standards (Return Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 8, paragraph 6). 16 In general, the monitors that responded to the questionnaire claim they are satisfied by how annual recommendations and reports are met and implemented by the authorities to which they are addressed (the Netherlands, Cyprus, Finland, Spain, the United Kingdom and Greece). Here, too, there are some differences. The Finnish Ombudsman requests monitors to deliver reports for each monitored operation and a written feedback is sent to the Police Board. The annual report is well received by the police force, which includes the Guarantor’s recommendations in their codes of conduct. The Swedish Migration Agency (Migrationsverket), operational since August 2018, sends its reports to the agencies involved in returns, as well as to associations and civil society organizations. The Belgian monitor creates a detailed report of each mission and sends it to the Ministry of the Interior, the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration, the Department of Migration and the Directorate of the Federal Police. Recommendations are sent separately to each body and authority concerned. A meeting with stakeholders is organized annually to discuss Return Handbook - Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017; Frontex Code of Conduct. 16