fundamental and human rights �.� national preventive mechanism against torture opportunity to participate in hobbies or other normal activities in or outside the institution. Only permitting the child to move in the company of an employee is also considered a restriction of the child’s freedom of movement. Restricting the freedom of movement always requires a written decision subject to appeal. The children’s movement had been limited to either a short period of independent outdoor exercise or leaving the unit only in the company of an adult. Every unit of the residential school restricted the children’s freedom of movement without a decision. Children could lose their rights to take walks, or the walks could be shortened as punishment for their behaviour. The arbitrariness of the rules concerning movement was underlined by the fact that several children placed into the institution whose freedom of movement was severely restricted while in the institution were nevertheless permitted to travel independently to home visits in the weekends. The Deputy-Ombudsman stressed that restricting a child’s freedom of movement may not be used as a punishment for the child’s behaviour. She considered that the residential school’s rules restricting the children’s freedom of movement had no basis in law (1353/2018). The movement of the children in their free time had been severely limited without individual decisions on the matter. The children were not permitted to leave the exercise area defined by the institution and their movement outside the institution was supervised. It is possible that the restrictions on the children’s movement constituted restrictions on the freedom of movement provided for by law, in which case they would have required individual decisions for each child (356/2018). In the Deputy-Ombudsman’s opinion, the child welfare unit’s rules restricting the children’s freedom of movement – such as only taking outdoor exercise alone and the related severing of social relationships – had no basis in law. The children’s opportunity to go to school must also be specifically secured during any restrictions on the freedom of movement. If this is not possible, the decision must provide specific justifications for such restrictions (4099/2018*). Physical examinations and bodily searches The ”justified reason to suspect” justifying a physical examination or bodily search must be recorded in the child’s documents. Such reasons are always individual and must be evaluated individually for each child. The child’s documents must also describe the practical implementation of the bodily search and physical examination. The Deputy-Ombudsman has required personnel conducting bodily searches and physical examinations to take the child’s age, sex, level of development, individual attributes, religion and cultural background into account. Such searches and examinations must be implemented in the manner that causes the least harm to the child (1353 and 4099/2018*). The residential school must make sure that no unauthorised external persons participate in the bodily searches or physical examinations of children. With regard to the child’s legal protection, the Deputy-Ombudsman considered it essential that the samples of children who give a positive screening test result and deny the use of the substance be always sent to a laboratory for examination (1353/2018). Room and mail searches The Deputy-Ombudsman has specified that a search of a child’s mail or room must always have a legal basis, which must be assessed individually and recorded appropriately in the child’s documents. Regular searches of a child’s mail without a concrete suspicion of substances or items referred to in the Child Welfare Act are not permitted. The Deputy-Ombudsman pointed out that the child has the right to know the reason for the search and be present during the search (1353 and 4099/2018*). 99