Concerning the characterization of the targeted entities, it is important to emphasize the fact that, in 2016, Regional Autonomous Administration (51%) appeared as the main interlocutor in complaints addressed to the Ombudsman, related not only with education, health and social security, but also agriculture, environment and transportation. In second place, were entities belonging to the Central Administration (26%), without taking account of justice administration issues (courts, registry and notary) which represent, autonomously, 6% of the total. Local Administration was demanded in 9% of the complaint procedures. In this context, cases against the municipalities of Angra do Heroísmo, Horta and Ribeira Grande were predominant. From the several subjects that have been in the basis of the Ombusdman intervention, it should be stressed out, for example: a remark to the Azores Regional Government Vice-Presidency concerning the delay on the payment of the attendance fees to members of Island Councils(61); a practical situation involving the conciliation of maternity rights and working time in a security force. At the end of the analysis, and despite the fact that no illegality was found, the Ombudsman has intervened, raising awareness to the targeted entity to the need of given a positive answer to this important question, receiving good collaboration to that end(62). 1.2.7.2. Office at the Autonomous Region of Madeira In the year 2016 the Office at Autonomous Region of Madeira instructed 155 new procedures; to this quantitative it were added 65 procedures from previous years, resulting in a total volume of 220 cases carried out in this period. In 2016, the Office closed 135 procedures (in 69,5% of the cases it was possible to close complaints submitted in the year itself ), and in about 50% the cases were satisfactorily ended after the Ombudsman’s intervention. Of the 154 closed procedures: – 7 were resolved following the Ombudsman’s intervention; – 3 corresponding to procedures in which the Ombudsman fixed suggestions or amendments to the entity addressed or identified irregularities in their performance. – In 1 circumstance, the case was solved but the illegality was not subsequently repaired; – In 4 cases the complainants were referred to other especially competent entities; – In 7 situations, it was concluded that the Ombudsman was incompetent to intervene; (61)  Ombudsman’s decisions 2016, pp. 242-246 (62)  Ombudsman’s decisions 2016, pp. 251-253 | 69