14 ANNUAL REPORT 2013 extent. This means, among other things, that we aim to conclude our cases at the latest 20 working days from the time when they are ready for assessment (in complicated cases, our aim is 40 working days). During the political negotiations about the new Act, it was agreed that three years after the coming into force of the Act, Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee would ask the Ombudsman to report on the practices of the public authorities regarding the provisions of section 24 and section 27(ii) of the Act. This gave rise to uncertainty in the media about the Ombudsman’s actual role, and we emphasised that we are solely required to report on whether the practices of the public authorities are in accordance with the Act, and not whether the provisions of the Act are appropriate. The latter is a purely political issue, which is for Parliament and not the Ombudsman to decide. Special cases in 2013 The brief summaries inserted here and there throughout this Annual Report reflect the diversity of issues which we deal with on a daily basis. In the following, I will outline some of the cases from 2013 which stood out in one way or another1: Many of our cases concern foreign nationals (aliens) in Denmark, and they provide an insight into the conditions for a group of vulnerable people. In one case, an HIV-infected woman from West Africa was about to be deported from Denmark, but she asserted that she was in successful treatment which she feared would not be available in her home country (2013-25). However, the Ministry for Justice refused her application for a humanitarian residence permit without investigating whether treatment options were in fact available in the woman’s home country. This was obviously a very serious matter – one might have doubts about the woman’s future prospects – but the authorities had followed a detailed practice on when to investigate treatment availability in the applicant’s home country, and we had to consider this practice to have been sanctioned by Parliament. In addition, the practice on this subject by the European Court of Human Rights is very restrictive, and consequently, we did not have grounds for criticising the authorities’ practice. So we were unable to help the woman. 1) For a more detailed examination (in Danish only) of the legal aspects of selected Ombudsman statements published in 2013, see the article ‘Udtalelser om almindelige forvaltningsretlige spørgsmål’ (‘Statements on general issues pertaining to administrative law’) under ‘Ombudsmandens beretning 2013’ at www.ombudsmanden.dk.