Summaries of selected statements | 49 of destination, two foreign nationals refused to leave the plane, and a local police chief hit the two deportees in the face. The Danish National Police assessed that under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Danish police officers had the responsibility for protecting the two foreign nationals. At the same time, however, the National Police assessed that due to, among other things, safety considerations, the Danish police officers – and thus the Danish state – did not neglect their obligations by not intervening towards the local police chief. The Ombudsman had no grounds for repudiating the assessment of the National Police that the two foreign nationals were under the jurisdiction of the Danish authorities. In addition, he had no grounds for criticising the assessment of the National Police that the police did not neglect their obligations during the deportation. medicine for one of the foreign nationals was inadequate. As a result of the inadequate documentation, the Ombudsman was unable to assess whether it was an error that the foreign national was not offered any prescription medicine during the deportation. On 6 February 2019, the National Police issued new guidance notes which clarify the obligations of Danish police officers during deportations. 2019-19. Obligation to provide guidance in connection with processing of case about access to document On 30 May 2018, a journalist asked the Ministry of Justice for access to a report from an interdepartmental working group on a review of provisions on control and inspection visits by authorities to citizens and businesses. The Ministry replied that it understood his e-mail as a request for access to the final report from the working group and informed him that the working group had not yet completed its work, and that therefore the final report was not yet available. More specifically, the Ombudsman agreed with the National Police, among other things, that it follows from the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in other areas that the positive obligations of a state must not be interpreted in such a manner as to impose a disproportionate burden on the state and that, further, they must be determined by reference to the situation at the time in question. On that basis, states may be held responsible if, for instance, their authorities have failed to take reasonable measures to protect persons for whom the authorities are responsible. In a complaint to the Ombudsman, the journalist stated that he had obtained a report from the working group through other channels. The report was dated 2 March 2018 and, according to the text on the front cover, was a ‘final report’. The assessment of the National Police of the obligation of the police to notify relevant authorities of any observations during an escorted deportation also did not give the Ombudsman cause for comment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the Ministry of Justice had delimited the journalist’s request for access too narrowly as the Ministry was in possession of the report/a draft of the report at the time in question. Further, the Ombudsman agreed with the National Police that the documentation regarding prescription The Ombudsman found that it would have been natural and relevant for the Ministry to have guided the In a statement to the Ombudsman, the Ministry explained that the use of the designation ‘final report’ by the working group was misleading as the report was a draft which was originally to have been discussed at a meeting of the Government’s Committee on Economic Affairs on 21 March 2018.