7 OTHER ISSUES was aware that he could leave the detention centre whenever he wanted. When the man’s condition deteriorated after a few days, the detention centre staff called an ambulance. After examining the man, the ambulance staff decided not to take him to hospital. Two days later, the nurse on duty at the detention centre assessed that the man needed hospital treatment. The man was taken by ambulance to hospital where he died. At the closing dialogue meeting, the management of the Swedish Migration Board stated that it cannot detain someone only on the grounds that they have expressed their consent to the measure. The health service made the assessment that the person would not be admitted into hospital care, and the infectious diseases doctor did not want the person to be out in the community. According to the management, the Swedish Migration Agency chose to resolve the situation that arose in a pragmatic way and that the agency would probably act in the same way again if a similar situation arose. In his decision, Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant stated that he had no reason to question the information that the man understood that he could leave the detention centre People not subject to a when he so wished. In the detention decision are opinion of the Parliamenot to be housed in a ntary Ombudsman, there was a clear risk that there detention centre was a misunderstanding or ambiguity about what rights and options for action the man had, which could lead to his freedoms and rights not being fully respected. Another important circumstance is that it must be considered as unclear the extent of responsibility for the man’s state of health the Swedish Migration Agency had after the detention order had ceased to be in force.8 The Parliamentary Ombudsman then stated the following: “It must not happen that people who are not subject to a valid detention decisions are accommodated in a detention centre. In the situation that arose, the Swedish Migration Agency had an obligation to do its utmost to find a solution that meant that the man could leave the detention centre as soon as possible. In this situation, the man spent several days in the detention centre after the detention order had been revoked. It is problematic that the Swedish Migration Agency did not ensure that the the situation was solved before the man was taken later to hospital. “ Simultaneously, Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant noted that the circumstances in the case in question were very unique and that the detention centre’s options for action were limited. He called on the Swedish Migration Agency – if it had not already been done – to urgently make a comprehensive analysis of the incident. The analysis should illustrate on, inter alia, what alternatives were available, and it should be made in consultation with other agencies and actors. In the view of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it should also cover the contact that the Swedish Migration Agency’s staff had with the infectious diseases doctor and whether there was a need to clarify in a dialogue with the infectious diseases doctor what the legal options was for the Swedish Migration Agency in the situation that arose. 8 – 58 – Chapter 11, Section 2 second paragraph of the Aliens Act.