LIMITS TO MINISTERS’ ‘POLITICAL COMMUNICATION’ ordered the Immigration Service to send the mission to Eritrea with instructions to find basis for tightening the practice in the individual asylum cases? After my investigation of the matter, I had no grounds for assuming that this was the case. But I stated that the Minister of Justice at the time (and the Ministry of Justice) was partly responsible for the suspicion having arisen in the first place. In a TV interview, for instance, the minister had said that, ‘I am going to hit the brakes now and will see to it that the Immigration Service goes to Eritrea to investigate whether we can send these people back’. The minister may in the situation have felt a need to show political initiative. But when the minister commented on what the authorities should do in consequence of a specific influx of asylum seekers, she was wearing her head of administration hat. In this situation, a minister cannot show so much political initiative that it compromises the role division between minister and asylum authorities ‒ a role division which exists precisely so that political interference in the processing of asylum cases is avoided. The authorities agreed with my main points of view and took note of my comments, but were at the same time preoccupied with the fact that I had not in my statement outlined any new demands for what they called ‘ministers’ political communication’. THE REFUGEE ADVERTISEMENT – GUIDANCE OF CITIZENS OR ‘COMMUNICATION OF POLITICAL INITIATIVES’? A somewhat different illustration of the issue is the case regarding the immigration authorities’ so-called refugee advertisement in Lebanese newspapers. 53 COURSE OF EVENTS IN THE ERITREA CASE August 2014: It becomes known that the Immigration Service will be sending staff on a fact-finding mission to Eritrea because of a strong increase in the number of Eritrean asylum seekers. November 2014: The Immigration Service publishes a report on conditions in Eritrea. It is the Immigration Service’s assessment that the conditions do not in themselves constitute persecution or give Eritrean asylum seekers a right to protection. November 2014: Questions regarding the authorities’ handling of the case are raised in the media, including questions regarding illegitimate political interference in the processing of asylum cases. A named source withdraws from the report, and two members of the Immigration Service staff criticise the report in public. The Immigration Service changes its general position on the right of asylum again so that Eritrean asylum seekers are as a general rule still to be granted asylum. December 2014: It emerges that the Immigration Service has given the two staff members a caution according to employment law. 15 September 2015: The Ombudsman makes a statement in the case. After having reviewed 7,000 pages of case files, he finds no ‘significant breaches of law’. He does, however, point out that the authorities have exposed themselves to the suspicion of ‘foul play’. The Ombudsman recommends that the authorities learn from the experience. 23 November 2015: The Ombudsman closes the case after the authorities have stated that they concur with his main points and have taken note of his comments.