Ε. Conclusions Findings Recommendations companied minors is a truly inevitable situation, which, as such, and with its existence alone does not entail, by itself, infringement of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 22 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (ICRC), the particular conditions of its implementation, when not complying with a humane and dignified treatment, constitute corresponding violations and cancel the protective nature of the declared purpose of the measure. In addition, the extension of detention beyond the reasonable time, even if due to the lack of accommodation spaces, inevitably underlines the forced nature of the measure, rendering it excessively onerous and disproportionate to its purpose. It is known that the sovereign rights of each state include the decision not only for the stay but also the removal of thirdcountry nationals, based on rules which the state itself has laid down. However, both the rules and their implementation cannot go beyond the perimeter imposed by respect for human dignity and the mandates of international, EU and national law. A typical example are forced returns, which are a European policy (Return Directive 2008/115/EC, Law 3907/2011). In the difficult, by definition, subject of the restriction of personal liberty for those third-country nationals that enter or stay without legal residence permit in the country, the presence of the Greek Ombudsman is a guarantee for transparency in the police’s actions and respect for the fundamental rights of the people involved. This is achieved by carrying out external monitoring on a sampling basis at each stage of the procedure of detention in view of return, and the removal operation, by road, sea or air. Issues of proportionality in the means of restraint, humane treatment, information provided to the irregular migrants on the procedure and their rights in a language they understand, communication with their family or a lawyer, respect for family unity and the dignity of the returning individuals, are substantial guarantees of the law, and external monitoring ensures that they are complied with in practice. There are however cases where the treatment of the returning third-country nationals does not always comply with the relevant specifications, as mentioned above in Chapter A5. The purpose of the Ombudsman is to lay down a common basis of understanding with each administrative body, that respect for rights is an integral part of an efficient returns system. 90 The consolidation of the belief that a state governed by the rule of law does not allow obscure fields of action to be created, is a key factor for the democratic legitimisation of police action, especially during a period when returns and readmissions from our sea borders tend to intensify, according to the European Commission’s action plan. For this reason, in cases such as those mentioned above (see Chapter A5), of the Syrians included for readmission to Turkey and the Iraqi women who were intended for inclusion in readmission, in October 2016, even though they stated that they had expressed an intention for an asylum application, the Ombudsman asked for a specific time frame of the internal investigation by the General Inspector, which is pending for around 4 months. And this to leave no margin for any impressions to be formed that the purpose of return for the State can lead to discounts on basic guarantees and fundamental rights, such as the right of international protection from non-refoulement. Even when the refugees and the migrants are living in freedom, the adverse living conditions observed during the 2015-2016 period, make the protection of their fundamental rights so difficult that in certain cases they may be seen even as cases of inhuman and degrading treatment. The belief that human rights are simply theoretical constructions, and do not create corresponding obligations for the state is reflected vividly in the case of the verification of minority, where, even though there is a legislative provision for its diagnosis procedure, the mechanistic and deficient compliance deprives an indefinite number of minors from third countries of the protection they are entitled to. Unfortunately the mandate with overriding legislative power (Article 3 ICRC, Law 2201/1992), to evaluate as a priority the child’s interest in all decisions related to it, whether taken by legislative bodies, administrative authorities, or public or private organisations of social protection, does not appear to provoke the required reflexes in the Administration. A main expression of all the above is the disregard of the presumption of minority each time it is doubted or even when the relevant claim is made by the interested party, and the insistence to treat this party as an adult. In direct contrast, we refer to the issue of the integration of refugee children in education. The child’s right to education, as established in the CRC (Article 28 of Law 2101/1992) and the Constitution (Article 16), was one of the main challenges of the Greek society, after the massive entry into