2014 AT THE OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION As to what concrete results the cooperation will bring, time will tell. But if the Danish Ombudsman institution is able to play just a small part in supporting a beneficial development in China, then the effort is well-spent. A COMMENT REGARDING PEOPLE UNDER TOLERATED RESIDENCE STATUS We dealt with far more in 2014 than space allows me to mention in this article. From conditions in Greenland’s police cells to internet pillorying of health care professionals. From the use of force towards children at psychiatric wards to the government’s information campaign regarding the Unified Patent Court. It is always difficult to say what has made the biggest impression in a report year ‒ that would often be like comparing pears and bananas. But very high up on my own list you will find our case on the conditions for persons under tolerated residence status at the asylum centre ‘Center Sandholm’ (Annual Report 2014, Case No. 2014-42). Senior Head of Department Morten Engberg gives an account of the case in a separate article in this Report. This is a case about people who have no right to be in this country but who cannot be sent home either. For example because they risk execution or torture. They are unwanted in Denmark, but they are our responsibility. They live at ‘Center Sandholm’ indefinitely and in conditions which can only be described as very stressful and restrictive for a normal life. They have to reside at ‘Center Sandholm’. They have a duty to report to the police, usually on a daily basis. Their physical living conditions are poor. They are not allowed to work. They have very limited financial means at their disposal. They are to a large extent barred from making their own food and deciding what and when to eat. Their lives are very constricted. And contrary to prison inmates, they do not know when this will end. Or if it will end. There are no easy solutions, and there is undoubtedly a need for various forms of supervision of these people. But there is reason to take a deep breath and think the system through based on all relevant regards ‒ also those of universally human and humanitarian considerations. We have a deeply rooted principle that society should not give people harsher living conditions than those made necessary by relevant circumstances. The question is whether we can say in good conscience that this is also the case here. 17