SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS Access to Public Administration Files Act and to a principle of increased access to files corresponding to section 14 of the Act. At the same time, the Ombudsman noted that, prior to the refusal, the Immigration Service had asked the journalist to delimit or clarify his request for access, but that he did not wish to do so. The journalist also complained about the extent of anonymisation in 32 cases to which he got partial access. The Ombudsman did not find any grounds for criticising the extent of the anonymisation either. 2014-42. MONITORING VISIT TO THE ASYLUM CENTRE ‘CENTER SANDHOLM’ – PERSONS UNDER TOLERATED RESIDENCE STATUS In 2012 and 2014, the Ombudsman carried out monitoring visits to the asylum centre ‘Center Sandholm’. The visits were carried out together with the Institute for Human Rights and DIGNITY ‒ Danish Institute Against Torture. The purpose of the monitoring visits was to assess the general conditions for persons under tolerated residence status who live at ‘Center Sandholm’. The monitoring visit in 2014 included a group of 25 individuals who had been under tolerated residence status and had had a duty to reside at ‘Center Sandholm’ since 2012 or earlier. Persons under tolerated residence status at ‘Center Sandholm’ are subject to a number of restrictions. Among other things, they have to live at the centre (often in rooms with one or two other people), they have a duty to report regularly to the police (typically every day), they cannot take on paid work, and they receive a limited cash allowance (a maximum of 31 DKK a day). They get meal coupons for the centre’s cafeteria. They can in principle cook their own food, but the reality is that this is very difficult for them because of the limited financial resources available to them. There is no limit to the duration of tolerated residence. Together with the indeterminate duration, the Ombudsman considered the overall conditions for persons under tolerated residence status at ‘Center Sandholm’ to have a very stressful and restrictive impact on a basic way of living. The general conditions were not, however, contrary to the ban on ‘degrading treatment’ in the UN Convention against Torture and in the European Convention on Human Rights. 123