The Scandinavian countries are much admired all over the world for their enlightened         ( society) policies. Sweden has evolved         excellent system for protecting the individual citizen from high-handed or incompetent public officers. The system has worked so well, that it has been        (adopt) in other countries too.

The Swedes were the first to recognize that public officials like civil servants, police officers, health inspectors or tax-collectors can make mistakes or act over-zealously in the           (believe) that they are serving the public. As long ago as 1809, the Swedish Parliament introduced a scheme to safeguard the interest of the individual. A parliamentary committee representing all political parties appoints a person           is suitably qualified to investigate private grievances against the State. The official title of the person is ‘Justiteombudsman’, but the Swedes commonly refer to him as the ‘J. O.’ or ‘Ombudsman’. The Ombudsman is not subject to political           ( press). He investigates complaints large and small that come to him from all levels of society. As complaints must be made in writing, the Ombudsman receives an average of 1, 200 letters a year. He has eight lawyer assistants to help him and he examines every single letter            detail. There is nothing secretive about the Ombudsman's work, for his correspondence is open to public inspection. If a citizen's complaint is         (justify), the Ombudsman will act on his behalf. The action he takes          (vary) according to the nature of the complaint. He may gently reprimand an official or even suggest to parliament that a law be altered. The following case is a        (type) example of the Ombudsman's work.

A foreigner living in a Swedish village wrote to the Ombudsman complaining that he had been ill-treated by the police, simply because he was a foreigner. The Ombudsman           ( immediate) wrote to the Chief of Police in the district asking him to send a record of the case. There was nothing in the record to show that the foreigner's complaint was justified and the Chief of Police strongly denied the accusation. It was          ( possible)for the Ombudsman to take action, but when he received a similar        ( complain) from another foreigner in the same village, he immediately sent one of his lawyers to investigate the matter. The lawyer ascertained that a policeman had indeed dealt        ( rough) with foreigners on several occasions. The fact          the policeman was prejudiced against foreigners could not be recorded in the official files. It was only possible for the Ombudsman to find this out by          (send)one of his representatives to check the facts. The policeman in question was severely reprimanded and was informed that if any further complaints were lodged against him, he would be prosecuted. The Ombudsman's prompt action at once put an end          an unpleasant practice which might have gone unnoticed.