SUMMARIES OF SELECTED CASES Article 3 on the right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The lawyer stated that deporting the woman to her home country would constitute a violation of these Articles if she could not receive adequate treatment in that country. The Ombudsman did not see any prospect of being able to criticise the result of the original decision by the Ministry for Justice or the decisions to refuse to resume the case. Consequently, the Ombudsman chose to close the case without submitting it to the Ministry for a statement. The Ombudsman emphasised that the practice defined in the memorandum on the standard practice for granting a residence permit on humanitarian grounds – including when to obtain information about treatment options in the applicant’s home country – had been submitted to Parliament, and that the Ombudsman had to consider the practice to have been sanctioned by Parliament. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would therefore require very strong arguments to contest the Ministry’s practice for granting a residence permit on humanitarian grounds, including the point when information on treatment options in the applicant’s home country is obtained. The Ombudsman did not see any prospect of finding such very strong arguments in the case. Thus, he did not find that he had the grounds required for presuming that the Ministry’s refusal to grant a humanitarian residence permit without investigating the woman’s treatment options in her home country was in violation of Article 2 or Article 3 of the European Human Rights Convention. F. MINISTRY OF CLIMATE, ENERGY AND BUILDING No cases concluded in 2013 were selected for publication as part of the Annual Report. G. MINISTRY OF CULTURE No cases concluded in 2013 were selected for publication as part of the Annual Report. 131