44 did not appear to be sufficiently rooted in profes­ sional practice among staff members. There were also several elements that were problematic with respect to children’s rights under the UN Conven­ tion on the Rights of the Child. This is particularly concerning, considering that some highly intrusive treatment methods had been employed. It appeared as if cases where children had been admitted for long periods or been subjected to extensive coercion did not lead to more systematic reviews by the Control Commission. The local Control Commission had not met with patients during 2019, nor had they conducted welfare checks at the units. No adequate system had been established to detect and ensure that the Control Commission received questions for consideration, regarding the hospitalisation of children under the age of 16 who had been opposed to hospital admission or wished to discharge themselves later during their stay. There was no overview of the number of adolescents under the age of 16 who had not agreed to hospitalisation, neither at the emergency unit nor at the assessment and treat­ ment unit. We found cases of adolescents under the age of 16 who had clearly been opposed to hospital admission, yet there had been no attempts to contact the Control Commission. Several factors appeared to contribute to a high threshold for complaints, which made the adolescents reluctant to make a complaint, even if they initially had wished to do so. Stavanger Hospital, Section for Mental Health Care, Children and Adolescents In October 2019, the Ombudsman’s NPM visited Helse Stavanger HF, Section for Children and Ad­ olescents. This is a 24-hour section within mental healthcare for children and adolescents, consisting of three wards. One ward is for children aged up to NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2020 13 years, and two wards are for adolescents aged between 13 and 18 years. The Ombudsman visited all three wards. The Ombudsman was particularly critical of the de­ sign of the segregation zones. The premises were designed in a manner that could appear frightening and threatening to vulnerable adolescents. The premises were comprised of a patient room with a toilet, a corridor, an interim area between the patient room and a room that was called a reinforced segregation room. There was no access to a lounge or common room. The reinforced segregation rooms had the appear­ ance of holding cells and were completely devoid of furniture apart from a fixed bed with a plastic mattress. Frosted windows made it impossible to see outside. The doors had two round inspection windows. This type of window may give a feeling of being surveilled and can increase the risk of the room being used for isolation. The stark, featureless character of the room meant that the demarcation between segregation and coercion became blurred. A review of documents showed that several young people had experienced this room as extremely unpleasant and frightening. Findings indicated that most of the adolescents who had been segregated, were allowed influence on activities and their treatment, and individual needs were given due consideration. In certain cases, the adolescents did not feel safe or they felt that they were not being treated with respect during segregation. Some adolescents had experienced particularly prolonged segregation with repeated administrative decisions. Some adolescents were subjected to a great deal of other coercion measures and had spent part of the segregation period in one of the reinforced segre­ gation rooms, in some cases for several weeks at a time. This is unacceptable and represents a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.