72 npm annual report 2016 / other activities provided was also requested. The matter is still pending at the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In the criminal sanctions sector, the practice of an open prison that imposed a disciplinary sanction on prisoners who refused to provide urine samples was investigated as a separate issue. In the decision issued on this matter, the Deputy-Ombudsman noted that the practice was not based on law and that it was also not possible to provide for a disciplinary punishment on this basis in the prison rules. At the same time, the situation in other prisons besides the open prison in question was investigated. No other open prison had a similar practice. 4.3 Legislative proposals When inspecting documents related to a prison visit, it was found that a warden had, when transporting a prisoner, brought a pillowcase to stop the prisoner from spitting. When it was observed that the prisoner had collected a mouthful of saliva during transport, the prisoner’s face was covered with a pillowcase. This action was considered problematic, which is why an own-initiative investigation of how the Criminal Sanctions Agency is prepared for the need for such protection measures was launched. This individual case will not be investigated, as it is pending as a criminal matter in the case of this prisoner. The information provided indicated that following the observations made during the visit, the prison had given up using pillowcases and purchased hoods specifically designed to prevent spitting. The Criminal Sanctions Agency had not issued separate instructions on anti-spitting devices. In his decision, the Deputy-Ombudsman found that preventing spitting by mechanical devices is a restriction of fundamental rights that interferes with the prisoner’s personal integrity, and legislative provisions that are carefully limited and sufficiently detailed should be laid down on it. The current legislation contains no provisions on protection measures and use of force to prevent spitting, or the devices used for this. The Deputy-Ombudsman informed the Ministry of Justice of the absence of regulation on devices that prevent spitting. He proposed that the Ministry of Justice consider if more specific legislation on protection against spitting is needed. On a visit to a child welfare unit, it was noted that under the Child Welfare Act, the staff does not have a right to order a child to strip. Asking a child to strip is a bodily search, not a physical examination referred to in the Child Welfare Act. On the other hand, the Child Welfare Act provision on bodily search does not give a right to strip the child. The Deputy-Ombudsman submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health aiming to assess if the provision on bodily search should be reviewed, at least in the case of young people who are the most demanding to care for.