(111)When delegating safe-keeping functions related to other assets according to Directive 2011/61/EU, delegation is likely to concern administrative functions in most cases. Where the depositary delegates record-keeping functions, it would therefore be required to implement and apply an appropriate and documented procedure to ensure that the delegate complies with the requirements of Article 21(11)(d) of Directive 2011/61/EU at all times. In order to ensure a sufficient level of protection of assets, it is necessary to set out certain principles that should be applied in relation to the delegation of safekeeping. For the delegation of custody duties it is important to set out some key principles which have to be effectively applied throughout the delegation process. Those principles should not be taken to be exhaustive, either in terms of setting out all details of the depositary’s exercise of due skill care and diligence, or in terms of setting out all the steps that a depositary should take in relation to these principles themselves. The obligation to monitor on an ongoing basis the third party, to whom safekeeping functions have been delegated should consist of verifying that this third party correctly performs all the delegated functions and complies with the delegation contract. The third party should act honestly, in good faith with a view to the best interests of the AIF and its investors, in compliance with regulatory and supervisory requirements, and should exercise care, diligence and skill that are normally expected from a highly prudent operator of that financial profession in comparable circumstances. The depositary should review, inter alia, elements assessed during the selection and appointment process and put these elements into perspective by comparing them with the development of the market. The form of the regular review should reflect circumstances, so that the depositary is in a position to appropriately assess the risks related to the decision to entrust assets to the third party. The frequency of the review should be adapted so as to always remain consistent with market conditions and associated risks. For the depositary to effectively respond to a possible insolvency of the third party, it should undertake contingency planning, including the design of alternative strategies and the possible selection of alternative providers as may be relevant. While such measures may reduce the custody risk faced by a depositary, they do not alter the obligation to return the financial instruments or pay the corresponding amount should they be lost, which depends on whether or not the requirements of Article 21(12) of Directive 2011/61/EU are fulfilled.