88 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 on the man and the woman during boarding was not adequately described in the deportation report. In addition, the course of events after the deportation had been aborted was inadequately documented as the deportation report contained no information about the factors and assessments on which the police officers had based their decision to keep the man’s hands/arms strapped in a restraint belt after the deportation was aborted at about 6 p.m. and until he was returned to the Ellebæk Institution for Detained Asylum Seekers at 9.30 p.m. Finally, the Ombudsman concluded that the police had not adequately substantiated that the use of restraint on the man after the deportation was aborted had been necessary for its entire duration. 2017-18. Significant documentation errors in connection with protracted placement in security cell Following a monitoring visit to a prison, the Ombudsman initiated an investigation of a case of the prison having kept an inmate in a security cell for more than four days in order to prevent him from harming himself. The inmate had been forcibly restrained to the bed by means of a waist belt, wrist straps, ankle straps and gloves. The prison had reported the case to the Department of Prisons and Probation, which had informed the prison that it had taken note of the report. Under the Corrections Act, an inmate may be placed in a security cell if, for instance, it is necessary in order to prevent suicide or other self-harm. If necessary, the inmate may also be forcibly restrained to a bed by means of a waist belt, wrist straps, ankle straps and gloves. A guard must be permanently present to supervise an inmate who has been forcibly immobilised, and the guard must note his or her observations at least every fifteen minutes in a special supervision form. If in exceptional cases an inmate remains immobilised for more than 24 hours, the case must immediately be reported to the Department of Prisons and Probation. During the Ombudsman’s investigation of the case, the prison provided significant information which had not previously been available about the inmate’s behaviour while he was immobilised. Both the prison and the Department expressed their regrets that the documentation in the case had been inadequate, and the Department acknowledged that it should have asked for supplementary information on receiving the report from the prison.