48 Main findings The security cells had no furnishings apart from a mattress on the floor. Each cell had a squat toilet. A hatch for passing food through was placed at floor level, about a metre from the toilet. Serving food on the floor can be perceived by the detainees as undignified, and that it is important to serve food and drink in as humane a manner as possible. Objections were also made to the installation of video surveillance systems in the security cells, and it was pointed out that none of the cells in the security section had access to a clock and calendar, making time orientation difficult. The security section had been used 368 times during the course of 2016. The security cells had been used more frequently at the beginning of 2017 than previously. It was also found that some detainees had been placed in the security section for long periods of time, and in some cases very long periods of time, which raises concerns about their well-being. The detention centre should increase its efforts to limit the time spent in the security section as much as possible. It is worrying that a large percentage of placements in the security section were based on the detainees’ mental health, self-harming or risk of suicide. Placement in the security section normally means that the detainee is placed in isolation and a high risk of harm to health is associated with this. It was pointed out that placing vulnerable persons at risk of self-harm or suicide in the security section as a means of safeguarding them gives cause for concern. Several minors had also been placed in the security section, including in a security cell. The use of handcuffs in connection with transportation appeared to be a routine procedure and many of those concerned were young people between the ages of 18 and 19. Body cuffs were used in the security section on two occasions. Pepper spray was used on one occasion in a cell in the security section in order to complete a body search. The detainee’s eyes were rubbed with the pepper spray from a glove that had been sprayed with the substance. Both the decision to use pepper spray and the way in which force was used appeared questionable in light of the requirements for necessity and proportionality. NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2017 The detention centre has implemented measures to prevent the use of force and placements in the security section, such as training and practice in using preventive alternatives. In general, the detainees felt that they were treated in a professional manner. However, authoritarian attitudes among some of the staff appear to have added to the escalation of certain situations. It was concluded that control and security considerations at Trandum are still a major focus, and that there is little leniency in the control regime. The fact that the medical personnel at Trandum are not sufficiently independent of the Police immigration service remains a challenge, and findings made during the visit substantiated that this contributed to a number of problems. The healthcare service also appears to be of an inadequate scope to be able to safeguard the health of all detainees in a satisfactory manner. The detention centre does not have access to a psychologist. Findings showed that the medical personnel had advised placing detainees in the security section, and that this advice had, in certain cases, led to the detainees staying there for long periods of time. The fact that medical personnel are directly involved in decisions on placing detainees in the security section is problematic in relation to medical ethics, since the measure can lead to isolation that can potentially harm health. Problematic findings were also made concerning the medical personnel's duty of confidentiality in relation to one of the doctors at the detention centre. The healthcare department still lacks clear reporting procedures for when physical injuries sustained by the detainees give rise to suspicion of disproportionate use of force.