1.

In a situation such as this, in which three possible countries of return are specified in the return decision and it was not (yet) clear at the time of the adoption of that decision to which country the foreign national would return, must a refoulement assessment be carried out at the time of the adoption of the return decision? Is the court ruling on the detention entitled to assess this of its own motion as a specific requirement of the return decision, even if no remedy against that return decision has been sought from that court?

2.

In a situation such as this, in which three possible countries of return are specified in the return decision and it was not (yet) clear at the time of detention to which country the foreign national is required to return, must a refoulement assessment be carried out when the detention order is imposed, given that the purpose of the detention is to facilitate the return of that foreign national, including by keeping him available for the purpose of determining his nationality or origin, and thus the country to which he is required to return? If so, must the refoulement assessment cover all possible countries of return specified in the return decision?

3.

If the answer to the first and second questions is in the negative, is it permissible in a situation such as this to postpone the conduct of a refoulement assessment until it is clear to which country the foreign national is required to return, for example, because his nationality has been confirmed by the authorities of that country or the foreign national himself has provided evidence of his nationality?