opcat inspections and follow-up ombudsman decisions There is a significant difference between the two orders, and the result of the latter means that there was no basis for a deprivation of liberty after the judgement became final on 24 March 2014. Despite this, N.N. was deprived of their liberty for a further nine days (until 2 April) when the police decided to take him into custody. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that it is extremely rare for a court to change the wording in the manner that had taken place. As the more precise reasons for the change were not known, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman found that the significant change would have been noticed if the responsible official at the remand prison had acted in accordance with applicable procedures. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman found no reason to believe that it was anything other than a mistake that was behind the incident. However, this mistake did result in a person being deprived of their liberty without legal grounds. This is unacceptable, and the remand prison was seriously criticised for the incident. Initiative on the possibility for inmates on remand to look at their surroundings through the windows of residential rooms, etc. ref. no. 7173-2014, decision of 16 November 2015 The decision found that the possibility for inmates in remand prisons or prisons to see out the window of their living quarters and get an idea of the surroundings may contribute to a stay in a remand prison or prison being perceived as less stressful, and thus counteract the negative consequences of a deprivation of liberty. For that reason it should, according to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, be described as a fundamental right of inmates to be placed in living quarters where the window enables normal daylight for the season to enter the space, and for the inmates to be able to view the surroundings. It should also be considered a fundamental right for inmates to independently control the amount of daylight entering their living quarters. In the same way, this also relates to the inmates’ opportunity to view their surroundings from an exercise yard. These rights may be restricted if the Prison and Probation Service finds that this is necessary in the individual case for reasons of order and security. If an inmate is obliged to stay in an environment where these rights are restricted, the Prison and Probation Service must take action to reduce the negative impact of the restrictions and ensure that their stay in such environments is as short as possible. In the decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also provides an opinion on the actions that individual remand prisons have taken in the attempt to prevent inmates from conducting unwanted communication through the 43