40 any real access to an efficient medical assistance complaints procedure. On a general basis, the way in which the health service is organised in Norgerhaven Prison, whereby the health personnel are employed by the prison, increases the risk of role confusion, particularly in relation to the health personnel’s involvement in the prison’s decision-making processes on coercive measures. During the visit, several findings were also made that indicate that the execution of sentences in Norgerhaven Prison does not adequately facilitate inmates being released back into society. The education offered in the prison is not adapted for inmates who require upper secondary and higher education, and the inmates’ actual opportunity for receiving visits from family and friend is severely limited. The postal scheme in Norgerhaven Prison also makes it difficult for inmates to send and receive post. It was also found that that language challenges and the staff’s lack of knowledge of the Norwegian regulations and practice have a negative effect on the serving of sentences. The inmates’ personal progression while serving is complicated by the long processing times for applications for parole and transfer to less restrictive prisons. The long processing times for applications was a major source of frustration among the inmates the Ombudsman spoke to during its visit. There was a general consensus among the inmates that it was more difficult to be granted parole from Norgerhaven Prison than from prisons in Norway. Nor do the inmates at Norgerhaven receive a preliminary response to their applications as required under Norwegian law. The fact that the prison did not provide sufficient information during consideration of the cases seems to have further increased the inmates’ frustration, in that they cannot to any great extent plan the serving of their sentence and release back into society. NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2016 The overall findings made during the visit show that being transferred without consent to another state to serve a Norwegian sentence constitutes a major intervention in the inmates’ lives. It also gives cause for concern that inmates who have extensive needs for medical assistance, young inmates and inmates who are not proficient in English are transferred, irrespective of whether or not this takes place voluntarily. During the visit, an assessment was also made of how the inmates’ rights and welfare are safeguarded at Norgerhaven Prison, in areas considered less directly affected by a sentence being served in another state. Findings were made in these areas which, in the view of the Ombudsman, seen in isolation safeguard the inmates' rights more expediently than if they had served their sentences in Norway. Among other things, the Dutch authorities are obliged pursuant to the agreement to ensure that inmates have set times for daily contact, which does not apply in the Norwegian Execution of Sentences Act. It emerged in interviews with the inmates that they felt that they spent more time outside their cells and had greater freedom of movement during the day than they had had in Norwegian high-security prisons. The Ombudsman noted that the inmates at Norgerhaven Prison, in contrast to the ordinary routine in a Norwegian prison, were not locked in their cells when they did not want to take part in organised leisure activities. The opportunity to have contact with next of kin, lawyers and others via video conference programs is another positive scheme, and the Norwegian Correctional Service should consider introducing it as a general scheme. The inmates were largely happy with how the prison facilitated contact via the phone and Skype, although a number of them pointed out that they did not regard it as adequate compensation for poor visit opportunities. Relations between staff and inmates generally appeared to be good. A clear majority of the inmates described the Dutch staff in a positive way. The feedback from inmates and the visit team’s own