15 Working Methods — The preventive work of the Ombudsman has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The NPM chose to suspend physical visits temporarily based on the precautionary principle. It was necessary to think anew about how we could fulfil our mandate without being physically present. — In spring we conducted an investigation of the conditions in several prisons at the start of the pandemic. Physical visits were replaced by tele­ phone interviews and a questionnaire which was distributed to a selection of inmates (see article in Chapter 3, Increased isolation and stricter conditions in prison during the COVID-19 pandemic ). Infection control measures have affected daily life in various institutions and many have experienced restrictions as a result of this. Information from several sources indicated that persons in care homes for elderly and persons with intellectual disabilities who live in their own home with assistance from the municipality, were subjected to intrusive restrictions during the pandemic. The NPM has therefore spent a great deal of time this year preparing visits to care homes and housing facilities for persons with intellectual disabilities. Neither patients in care homes nor persons with intellectual disabilities that receive assistance from the municipality have in principle been deprived of their liberty. However, there may be cases where these persons and their situations fall within our mandate. At care homes, in some cases, administrative decisions may be made concerning admission or detention against the resident’s will.2 Patients in care homes can also be subjected to extensive restrictions, such as locked doors and other measures preventing freedom of movement without administrative decisions being passed.3 We are also aware that persons with intellectual disabilities who receive health and care services in their own home can be subjected to extensive restrictions that can amount to a de facto depriva­ tion of liberty.4 The European Court of Human Rights has estab­ lished that if an institution exercises complete and effective control of care and freedom of movement of a person, this can constitute deprivation of liberty despite the fact that their presence there is voluntary.5 The Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture points out that any place that a person cannot leave of their own free will, or places where there is a suspicion that persons can be subjected to such restrictions on freedom of movement, fall within the mandate of the NPM, insofar as the state has, or must be expected to have, a “regulatory ­function’.6 During the ongoing pandemic there are many residents in both housing facilities for persons with intellectual disabilities and in care homes that fall within these categories. Even under normal circumstances, there will be persons within both sectors who experience restrictions so severe that they in sum represent a deprivation of liberty according to the definition of the Optional Protocol. 2 Patient and Service User Rights Act chapter 4A. 3 See also NOU 2019: 14 Restrictions on the Use of Coercion Act, chapter 6.5, page 150 et. seq. 4 NOU 2019: 14, chapter 24.6.2, page 494 et. seq. 5 See e.g. H. L. v. United Kingdom, application no. 45508/99, judgement of 5 October 2004. 6 Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT), Response to the New Zealand Human Rights Commission’s request for interpretative guidance on Article 4.2 of the OPCAT (2015).