20 Case No. 13/04834 The Ombudsman had selected addiction treatment and prevention of violence and threats among users as themes for his monitoring vis­­its in 2013. As part of the theme, two Ombudsman employees together with a medical doctor from DIGNITY – Danish Institute Against Torture visited a private treatment facility for addicts. The treatment facility had few problems with violence and threats among the residents. One episode had resulted in the transfer of one resident to another facility. Other subjects were also discussed during the monitoring visit; it turned out, for instance, that the facility did not have instructions on the use of coercive measures because, basically, coercion was not used towards the residents. At the end of the visit, the monitoring team recommended that the facility none the less draw up instructions on the use of coercion in order to ensure that the staff knew what to do in case a situation arose where coercion was necessary. The facility followed the recommendation. The Ombudsman cooperates with DIGNITY and the Danish Institute for Human Rights on ­OPCAT monitoring visits, the purpose of which is to ensure that the UN rules against torture are observed. The visits may go to both public and private institutions. Case No. 13/00989 A journalist at a weekly newspaper had for some time shown an interest in a report which was being prepared by a Government ministry. One day, he could read all about the now finished report in a daily newspaper, and he complained to the Ombudsman that the ministry had discriminated against him in favour of the daily newspaper which had been given access to the report. He wrote in his complaint that he had telephoned the ministry’s press secretary and asked for the report as late as the day before the daily newspaper ran the story. The press secretary had just given him a noncommittal reply, even though the report had to have been finished at that stage. The Ombudsman agreed that the ministry had a duty to treat journalists the same. But as the journalist from the weekly newspaper could not prove that he had asked for access to the report, and as the ministry could not remember his telephone call, the Ombudsman was unable to carry out a more detailed investigation. In 2013, the Ombudsman received 107 complaints from journalists who wanted access to information for work purposes.