fundamental and human rights �.� national preventive mechanism against torture The photos are taken at Joutseno detention unit. On the left, a place for washing feet. On the right, a new indoor football court. Protection of privacy in the shower facilities of the isolation premises On the previous inspection visit, the NPM had pointed out that the isolation room’s surveillance camera had been installed in a manner that permitted viewing the torso of the person in the shower. The Ombudsman was not convinced that a surveillance camera was necessary in the shower room. According to the Finnish Immigration Service, the surveillance camera was necessary, especially due to the safety of suicidal clients. The prevention of vandalism was cited as another important reason for surveillance. After the Ombudsman gave his opinion, the camera surveillance of the shower facilities was nevertheless changed to exclude the torso of the person using the shower from the picture. In addition, a sign explaining what parts of the body are not visible in the camera was posted on the wall of the shower room. The surveillance camera in the shower premises was non-recording. The Ombudsman noted that, by virtue of the Detention Act, all premises in the detention unit could be placed under camera surveillance. Recording surveillance cameras are not allowed in certain premises of detention units – such as the accommodation, toilet and shower areas. The only exception to this are facilities in which persons are kept in isolation – such facilities are not considered as accommodation space and the use of recording camera surveillance is allowed in them. The Ombudsman noted that no other administrative branch that has premises for keeping persons deprived of their liberty has a statutory right to use surveillance technology in the scope permitted in alien detention units. This is true for psychiatric hospitals, prisons and police detention facilities alike. Suicidal persons and persons with a risk of causing property damage are also placed in isolation in these facilities. The Ombudsman was not convinced of the necessity of camera surveillance in the isolation area’s shower room. If an individual case requires a person to be under constant supervision due to a risk of self-harm, the Ombudsman considered having someone monitor them in person when they take a shower would be a better alternative. The Ombudsman found the situation to be particularly problematic with regard to the right to privacy of foreign persons placed in the detention unit. The toilets and shower rooms in facilities for keeping persons in isolation are for both male and female detainees placed in isolation. The surveil- 93