90 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 For this reason, the Ombudsman recommended that the authorities consider a number of questions in relation to the safety of persons placed in the five facilities. Based on the information which the Ombudsman had received about the conditions at the time for persons placed in the detention facility at Kulusuk, he agreed with the authorities that the general conditions for these persons did not contravene the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 2017-35. Refusal of access to information about possible colla­b­oration between Danish Security and Intelligence Service and Armed Forces A journalist asked the Ministry of Justice for access to information about a possible collaboration between the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) and the Armed Forces. The Ministry partially refused the journalist’s request with reference to, among other provisions, section 23(1) paragraph (1) and section 24(1) paragraph (1) of the Access to Public Administration Files Act on internal documents and ministerial advice and assistance documents, respectively. In addition, the Ministry stated that it could not generally give information about which specific tasks had occasioned PET to request assistance from the Armed Forces, or details of how such assistance was arranged, as such information could reveal PET’s working methods. The Ministry was of the opinion that such information would be exempt from access under section 31 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act, under which the right of access may be restricted to the extent this is of significant importance to the security of the state or the defence of the realm. Further, the Ministry stated that it could neither deny nor confirm that it had withheld information from access under this provision in the specific case as this would compromise the protection of knowledge of PET’s working methods. The Ombudsman found no grounds for criticising the result of the Ministry’s decision, including its applying section 31 of the Access to Public Administration Files Act and its decision to neither deny nor confirm that it held any information within the scope of the journalist’s request.