theme for 2017: supervision of those deprived of their liberty 59 a year later, it was established that such procedures had been introduced.1 The notes kept during the supervision were, however, still deemed to be lacking. Such failures were also noted at the inspection of other police custody facilities.2 Over the last few years, technical solutions have been introduced in a number of police custody facilities with a view to facilitate supervision and, in this way, ensure that supervision is actually performed. The system is called CellTrac and means that the police custody facility guard reads a magnetic chip in each cell door in connection with the supervision. The detainee’s status is recorded along with a supervision code. The system facilitates the supervision, since the police custody facility guard does not need to write down the observation on forms that are not always suitably worded. These technical developments are positive and could contribute to supervision being performed in accordance with applicable procedures. This requires the magnetic chip for electronic reading to be positioned so that the police custody facility guard is able to observe the detainee and record the detainee´s status.3 Remand prisons During the year, there were a number of inspections of remand prisons and it emerged that there were major differences in the wording of procedures for regular supervision. It occurs that detainees who do not attract the attention of the staff and are not subject to regular medication are locked up in their residential room for up to 12 hours in connection with the daily rest period. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has previously stated that it is appropriate to have a procedure where the night staff keep in personal contact with each detainee. This type of contact reduces segregation and is also an important opportunity for the staff to check the detainees wellbeing.4 During the inspection of one remand prison it was noted that the observation room in which detainees are placed in isolation is continuously monitored by a camera. This monitoring is also regularly combined with recording. Camera monitoring violates an individual’s integrity. Under certain circumstances, there are grounds for exercising such monitoring in order to guarantee the safety of both detainees and staff in situations where the detainee is anxious, without him or her displaying self-harming behaviour. If it is assessed that such monitoring should take place, this should be noted in the decision on isolation. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen also urged the Prison and Probation Service to install a technical solution to make it possible to switch off the camera when monitoring is not deemed necessary.5 1 See Ref. nos. 5544-2016 and 6464-2017. 2 See Ref. nos. 6445-2015, 3902-2016 and 6361-2016. 3 Ref. no. 387-2016. 4 Ref. nos. 416-2017, 417-2017, 418-2017, 419-2017 and 581-2017. 5 Ref. no. 418-2017. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has previously stated that it is appropriate to have a procedure where the night staff keep in personal contact with each detainee.