70 On Tuesday 30 October 2012, the Ombudsman’s OPCAT monitoring team rang the doorbell at the secure residential institution Egely to make an unannounced visit to the secure sections of the institution, including a high-security section. The Egely management, which were in the middle of a job interview, welcomed the monitoring team and ensured that the monitoring visit could be carried out. Most monitoring visits are announced, but the Ombudsman can also visit unannounced, for instance to follow up earlier, announced visits. The concept of accessibility for people with disabilities was not mentioned in connection with the upper secondary school reform, which resulted in the former county upper secondary schools becoming self-governing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was important that accessibility for people with disabilities was included in the planning and coordination of the upper secondary schools area. He therefore requested a meeting with the Ministry of Education. At the meeting, the Ministry stated that it was considering contacting the committees responsible for allocating students to the individual upper secondary schools. The Ministry subsequently informed the Om­ budsman that the issue had been discussed at a meeting with the secretariats of the al­ location committees and had been included in the Ministry’s considerations of amendments to the executive order concerning admission to upper secondary schools. After an amendment was made to the order, accessibility for people with disabilities is now an important criterion in connection with the allocation of students to the individual upper secondary schools. At the request of the Danish Parliament, the Parliamentary Ombudsman monitors develop­ ments in the equal treatment of people with disabilities. Among other things, he monitors accessibility for people with disabilities, especially in relation to older public buildings. In addition, he collaborates with the relevant authorities and the Disabled People’s Organisa­ tions Denmark on a regular basis. During a deportation to Kabul, a 26-year-old Afghan man went berserk. The man had been pre-assessed as very violent, and when he was collected at the Institution for Detained Asylum Seekers, Ellebæk, his hands were restrained with a restraining strap. On the plane to Istanbul, he butted two policemen. He was then held down in his seat by the three accompanying policemen for an hour until their arrival in Istanbul. During the transit period in Istanbul, he remained violent, among other things kicking a policeman in the head. With the help of Turkish police, the policemen succeeded in immobilising the man and tried to calm him down before the flight to Kabul. Nonetheless, he repeatedly tried to butt the policemen. However, on the plane to Kabul he calmed down and after an hour, his hands were therefore released. The journey was com­ pleted without further use of force. The entire process was observed by an Om­ budsman representative, who accompanied the Afghan man and the policemen to Kabul, where the man was let into the country without any problems. The Ombudsman repre­ sentative later stated that the police had to use force and that their use of force was not excessive. In these circumstances, the depor­ tation was as dignified as possible. The Ombudsman monitors deportations by the police. An employee is responsible for monitoring the process in connection with de­ portations – partly by joining flights and partly by reviewing the police files in selected cases.