in its first statement, the NPM urged it to respond. Thereafter, the Ministry informed the NPM that the commanding officer could no longer remember because the incident had occured some time ago. In this regard, the NPM criticised, above all, the manner in which the Federal Ministry of the Interior handles criticism from the NPM. First it does not address the criticism from the NPM at all. Then, if it is an urgent case, the Ministry indicates that it cannot verify the allegation due to the lengthy period of time that has passed. If complete information had been provided at the outset, this prolonged and ultimately unfruitful process would not have been necessary. In another case, as in the preceding reporting year, the NPM complained that the separation of a family in the course of a planned return to Hungary had at least been accepted. On the first attempt, the family could not be placed in detention pending forced return because they were away visiting relatives and could not be found at their dwelling place. On the second attempt, the husband could not be found. The mother and children were ultimately placed in detention pending forced return without the husband and father and were supposed to be handed over to Hungarian authorities four hours later. Separation of families Since the husband could not be found at his dwelling place on two occasions, the authority assumed that the husband wished to avoid return. In the opinion of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, this justified the return of the wife and children without the husband and father of the children. The NPM did not assume that the father had gone into hiding or intentionally sought to prevent his forced return. The Federal Ministry of the Interior did not weigh the interests as required by Article 8 of the ECHR. The planned return was ultimately not carried out since the schedule for the return could not be adhered to despite the efforts of the Federal Ministry of the Interior. No weighing of interests in accordance with Article 8 of the ECHR Another observation related to a husband who was to be returned to Poland with his family. In the course of the forced return, the family refused to board the aeroplane, whereupon the husband was restrained and handcuffed. In the course of this action, he collapsed due to an existing back problem. The children became very agitated and ran around aimlessly. These scenes were observed by an independent witness, who provided the NPM with his observations to be recorded. Forcible implementation of a return In this regard, the NPM, inter alia, made reference to two recommendations of the former Human Rights Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of the Interior stating that, from the standpoint of proportionality, the interests in carrying out an official act should be weighed against the risks in the specific situation – particularly if coercion is going to be used. In the individual case, this weighing of interests can result in halting the official act, postponing it to a later time or even cancelling it. In another recommendation, the former Human Rights Advisory Board at the Federal Ministry of the Interior stated that, at every stage of a forced return, it should be determined whether human rights issues have arisen that make a continuation of 147