npm annual report 2016 / observations and recommendations 3.4 Customs detention facilities No visits were made to the detention facilities of the Customs in 2016. The measures taken in connection with the 2014 visit concerning the detention facilities and monitoring arrangements at the Vaalimaa Customs are discussed above in the section on the Border Guard. The report provided by the Customs showed that it also had not identified the detention facilities as facilities that are subject to the provisions of the act on the treatment of persons in police custody and would have to be approved by the Customs in accordance with the Customs Act or would require rules. The Deputy-Ombudsman issued a decision addressed to the Border Guard in 2015. In the decision, she considered it important that persons deprived of their liberty on the same grounds must be treated equally in all cases, regardless of which authority is in charge of the detention. The decision was sent to the Customs for information, after which the Customs drew up rules for the Vaalimaa detention facility in February 2016. In a decision issued in May 2016 concerning the Customs, the Deputy-Ombudsman referred in connection with CCTV monitoring to the opinions of international monitoring bodies and the decisions of the overseer of legality. She drew particular attention to the need to ensure the protection of privacy in toilet facilities. The Deputy-Ombudsman also noted the importance of providing detained persons with sufficient information on the special conditions mentioned in the rules of the facility and other provisions that apply to them. A detained person must be in possession of or have access to the rules of the facility as laid down by law. The Deputy-Ombudsman drew particular attention to the rules on the use of telephone. Under the act on the treatment of persons in police custody, it is prohibited to listen to phone calls between an attorney and his or her client. The conditions must guarantee the confidentiality of such telephone calls. According to the act on the treatment of persons in police custody, the rules of a facility shall include provisions on the use of telephone. The Deputy-Ombudsman communicated her views to the Customs and required the Customs to assess the need to also draw up rules for the other facilities it uses. In August 2016, the Customs notified that it had further specified the rules of the Vaalimaa detention facility with respect to the privacy, access to information, communication and telephone use of persons deprived of their liberty. According to the Customs, persons deprived of their liberty are provided with a copy of the rules, which have been translated into Swedish, Russian and English. The Customs also reported that it is considering the need to establish rules for its other detention facilities (in total 10). The Deputy-Ombudsman found nothing to criticise in the Vaalimaa rules after the clarifying amendments. In other respects, progress will be monitored. The Deputy-Ombudsman has considered the concepts and contents of international legal and executive assistance in a matter in which a criminal investigator from another country had, with the permission of the head of the investigation at the Finnish Customs and in the presence of an investigator from the Customs, interviewed a complainant who was in remand imprisonment about the complainant’s connections to other offences than the one being investigated in Finland. The Deputy-Ombudsman took the view that in the circumstances it was problematic to justify the procedure on the grounds of consent. The Deputy-Ombudsman informed the Customs that collaboration among pre-trial investigation authorities and customs authorities must be based on international agreements and acts and comply with the procedures laid down in them. 25