npm annual report 2016 / other activities 4.4 Proposals on recompense In his role as a supervisor of fundamental rights, the Ombudsman can make proposals concerning recompense for human rights violations. When it is no longer possible to rectify a problem, the Ombudsman may suggest that an authority make an apology to the person whose rights have been violated, or that financial compensation be considered. The proposals have in most cases led to a positive outcome. Below, some examples of proposals on recompense made in 2016 are given that are associated with violations against persons deprived of their liberty or with their treatment. No justifications required by law for placing a prisoner in observation were given, no decision was made on placing the prisoner in observation, and the health care staff was not informed of the placement. In addition, the manner in which the strip search that proceeded the observation and the conditions in which the prisoner was kept were inappropriate. The Deputy-Ombudsman found it credible that the prisoner had been cold at night in the isolation cell in scant clothing and without a blanket. The Deputy-Ombudsman proposed that the State of Finland pay the prisoner compensation for being placed in observation without proper grounds. The Ombudsman proposed that a patient be recompensed for a chain of events that started when the patient left a central hospital’s joint emergency services. A doctor had been in breach of the Mental Health Act by not ensuring, when requesting executive assistance from the police, that a health care professional would accompany the patient during transport. The patient was then locked up in the secure room of the emergency services unit, which did not appear necessary. No decision made by a doctor on the patient’s seclusion was found in the documents. The monitoring of the secluded patient was also insufficient. According to the Ombudsman, this had compromised and violated the patient’s fundamental rights to personal freedom and safety, and the Ombudsman thus recommended that recompense be paid for the violations. The possibilities of a patient in involuntary care of contacting their legal representative were restricted without grounds laid down in the Mental Health Act and following an incorrect procedure. According to the Ombudsman, this could constitute a violation of the protection of privacy enshrined in the Constitution and the European Human Rights Convention. The patient’s psychotic symptoms were not a sufficient reason to restrict contact with a legal representative by over 24 hours, especially when the patient no longer was secluded. The Ombudsman requested that the hospital district consider if it could compensate the patient for this violation of rights. 73