74 | Annual Report 2018 It would be possible to extract information about the planned staffing during the match and about the working hours recorded for the staff on duty around the time of the match. However, access to the information was denied with reference to section 33 paragraph (1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act. The police emphasised that granting access to the information would adversely affect specifically the handling of future matches between the two football clubs in terms of safety and prevention. Likewise, knowledge by the public of the planning by the police for the football match and the resources which the police had used in connection with the match would considerably impair the possibility of preventing breaches of the law at similar football matches and other similar events in the future. The Ombudsman found no grounds for repudiating the statement of the police district and the National Police that, based on a specific assessment, it had been necessary for safety and prevention reasons to deny access to information about the resources used by the police in connection with the football match. The National Police had stated that it was an established practice not to provide information about the level of police resources used in connection with major police operations, including in relation to football matches. This occasioned the Ombudsman to point out that an established practice by the authorities concerned is not adequate grounds for denying access to information with reference to section 33 paragraph (1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act – as a specific assessment of the necessity of denying access must be made in each individual case. 2018-39. Unannounced monitoring visits to Departure Centre Sjælsmark – conditions for children In October 2017, the Ombudsman’s Children’s Division carried out two unannounced monitoring visits to Departure Centre Sjælsmark. The first visit was carried out together with DIGNITY – Danish Institute Against Torture. The visits concerned the conditions for children who are housed at the centre with their parents. The children and their families are rejected asylum seekers who do not assist in their deportation and are therefore required to reside at the centre. The Ombudsman’s assessment was that the children housed at the centre were generally to be regarded as living under difficult conditions. He assessed that this was not primarily due to the specific facilities etc. at the centre but to a greater extent to the simple fact that the children were required to reside at the departure centre instead of living in normal society. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman did not find that the conditions for children at the departure centre could generally be presumed to violate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention Against Torture or Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Further, he stated that the question of the requirement for the families to reside at the departure centre is basically governed by the Aliens Act, i.e. regulated by the legislature. It would therefore be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under the Ombudsman Act to take any further action on the question, among others, of the requirement to reside at the centre. However, the Ombudsman pointed to some specific aspects of the centre – such as the eating arrangements and the leisure activities available – which could be changed with a view to improving the well-being of the children.