THE REVISED HANDBOOK ON RETURNS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directive.32 The Handbook includes a list of criteria for inclusion into the domestic, legal framework but it also innovates in relation to 2015, proposing five additional criteria to be adopted as legal presumptions by the member states (paragraph 6.1 of the Handbook). The decisive difference is evident, the subscription of at least one of the criteria of the second list regarding the risk of absconding, constitutes sufficient evidence for bringing upon the result, the placement in detention, which is no longer subject to co-appraisal. The Commission, in the revised Handbook, incites the Member states from now onwards (paragraph 14.1) to make use of detention when the terms of Article 15 of the Directive are fulfilled, something which relocates the centre of weight of the Directive from the rule of alternative measures towards the exception, namely detention. Moreover, in the Handbook, the Commission recommends that the detention of underage minors should not be forbidden by the laws of the member states (paragraph 16). Starting once again from the fact that in the Directive this is not forbidden (article 17), the centre of weight is once again relocated, through the interpretation, to the exclusion of forbidding it. We note that the view of the Ombudsman is steadily against the detention of minors, because by definition the detention does not coincide with the best interest of the child, which is the decisive criterion of any measure related to minors, according to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.33 As regards the return of minors, erasing one word, the word “only” in the second paragraph of Article 10 (paragraph 10) of the initial Handbook, is characteristic, albeit at first sight irrelevant: “Return is {only} one of the options to be examined when identifying a durable solution for unaccompanied minors”. The Handbook of 2015 highlights that other options also exist, not just one, namely the return, while its amendment confirms that the return of minors has the character of a sustainable solution. A point that is more important, in substance, is that the revised Handbook (paragraph 10), starting from the observation that return of minors is not prohibited by the Directive (article 10), proposes that it should be clear in the law of member states that, if a special permission to stay is not foreseen, then the member states are obliged to produce a decision of return for the minors, which constitutes a precondition of any subsequent postponement of removal. The more general picture that arises from the review of the Handbook is that the system of returns is becoming more strict. The deadlines are shortened, as for example for voluntary 32 Article 3 para.7 of the Return Directive 33 S  ee the recent opinion of the Ombudsman to the draft Law 4540/2018, in Greek, p.3: https://www. synigoros.gr/?i=kdet.el.news.495164 25