96 statements and own-initiatives Time spent outside cells The basic principle behind regulations and international recommendations regarding prisoners is rehabilitation and the treatment that enables their social reintegration once released. Prisoners and remand prisoners should therefore be allowed to spend a reasonable amount of time, at least eight hours per day, outside their cells. During that time, they should be able to engage in rewarding and stimulating activities, such as work, training and exercise. During a visit to Riihimäki Prison, it was noted that, in certain wards, prisoners had few opportunities to spend time outside their cells in a meaningful way. The prison has since made efforts to address the situation. The Deputy-Ombudsman has since drawn the prison’s attention to the fact that, during weekends, prisoners have limited opportunities to spend time outside their cells. The Deputy-Ombudsman also pointed out that prisoners who did not participate in activities should also be offered the opportunity to spend time outside their cells. Equitable treatment of prisoners The possibility of prisoners to purchase vitamins and nutritional supplements, and the right to possess them, varies between prisons. The Deputy-Ombudsman stated that the harmonisation of prison rules was necessary in this respect. Follow-up: The Central Administration of the Criminal Sanctions Agency reported that it was planning to establish a prison rules working group. The prison rules working group may consider the varying practices regarding the possession, purchase, and storage of vitamins and nutritional supplements. The Central Administration of the Criminal Sanctions Agency appointed the Prison Rules Working Group in December 2017, and it was tasked with preparing for the harmonisation of rules and practices with the aim of ensuring the equitable treatment of prisoners. Failures in decision-making required by the Act on Special Care for Mentally Handicapped Persons During a visit to the Kuusanmäki Service Centre, it was noted that the unit had not made statutory decisions on matters such as restrictive equipment and clothing or supervised movement, as required by the Act on Special Care for Mentally Handicapped Persons. The Ombudsman found that the service centre had neglected its statutory duty to base the use of restrictive measures on a proper decision. Negligence in proper decision-making was prevalent throughout the Kainuu social welfare and health care district. The Ombudsman stated that, as in the case of AVI Northern Finland, the practical implementation of statutory practices laid down in law had been overlooked and under-resourced. There were also shortcomings in communications. The Ombudsman issued a reprimand to the Kainuu social welfare and health care joint authority and Kuusanmäki Service Centre for unlawful conduct.