44 A fair amount of information about public employees is contained in so-called personnel files. Pursuant to the Act on Public Access to Documents on Public Files, others cannot, as a starting point, get access to such information. This was the argument of the Central Customs and Tax Administration when a journalist re­ quested access to information about a high-profile case where tax administration management had been invited on expensive trips by collaborators. The journalist lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman and it turned out that the information about the trips was not only included in the personnel files, but also in a general file. The Central Customs and Tax Administration therefore could not simply reject the journalist’s request, but had to carry out a specific assessment of which information was confidential and which was not. The Ombudsman recommended that the Central Customs and Tax Administration reopen the case. It may be necessary to use force and compulsion against elderly people with dementia. The Ombudsman’s so-called OPCAT unit therefore visited a nursing home in Rødovre. The Ombudsman employees spoke with both personnel and residents. The re­cur­ rent question was what was done to prevent so-called degrading treatment of residents. A doctor from the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims also participated in the visit. During the visit, various specific issues were discussed. During the discussions, the nursing home management stated that the problems would be resolved. The final report was a couple of pages long, as the Ombudsman found no grounds for submitting written comments to the responsible authorities. OPCAT is an abbreviation of the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In Denmark, the Ombudsman monitors that persons deprived of their liberty are treated in accordance with the principles of the international rules against torture etc. An Afghan woman applied for family reunification with her Afghan husband. Pursuant to the rules, this was conditional on the couple’s joint association with Denmark being greater than their association with another country. In this case, the authorities took the view that the couple had a greater association with Afghanistan or Iran than with Denmark. The Ombudsman could not criticise this view. However, the case caused him to emphasise to the Immigration Service that the authorities are responsible for ensuring that foreigners understand their letters. There is no obligation to translate a letter which a foreigner understands, just because he or she would prefer another language, and if an authority receives a letter in Danish, it may usually also reply in Danish.