5 SWEDEN HAS RECEIVED INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM OF THE CONDITIONS FOR INMATES HELD ON REMAND 5 Sweden has received international criticism of the conditions for inmates held on remand For many years, Sweden has received international criticism for both long remand prison periods and the extent of the use of restrictions. This criticism comes from, inter alia, the UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) and Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). entered into force in 1989. In connection with this, the CPT was also established with the main task of regularly visiting institutions holding individuals deprived of their liberty in Europe. Sweden has been visited by the CPT six times (1991, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2009 and 2015). The next periodic visit is scheduled to take place in 2020. 5.1 Sweden is being monitored by a variety of international bodies 5.2 Criticism from the UN Since 1987, the UN Convention Against Torture has been in force in Sweden. States parties to the convention are reviewed by the UN Committee Against Torture, CAT, and states must regularly report on how they fulfil the requirements of the convention. The Convention Against Torture does not give the CAT a mandate to perform inspections of the states parties. A special protocol, Opcat, was adopted in 2002 to enable such visits. An additional protocol entered into force in 2006 and has the stated objective of preventing the occurrence of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Through Opcat, the SPT was also established. The SPT has 25 independent members who are all experts in areas that are relevant to preventing torture. The members are appointed by the states parties to the Protocol. The SPT conducts visits to acceding states based on a yearly schedule. Sweden was visited by the SPT in 2008. The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment In 2008, the SPT visited Sweden with inspections of, inter alia, Kronoberg and Uppsala Remand Prisons (Blankahuset and Salagatan). The SPT noted in its report that, of the inmates in Kronoberg Remand Prison, 47 per cent were subject to restrictions, while 50 per cent of the inmates in Uppsala (Salagatan) Remand Prison and 30 per cent of the inmates in Uppsala (Blankagatan) Remand Prison had some form of restriction imposed. After the visit, the SPT emphasised that restrictions must not be used routinely. Furthermore, the SPT recommended that Sweden review its legislation regarding the use of restrictions. This includes, inter alia, Sweden was recommended that the grounds for to take measures to prevent imposing each inthe negative effects of dividual restriction isolation should be clearly described in lawand for a court should be obliged to examine the necessity for each specific restriction. The SPT noted that the lack of a systematic collection of data – 28 –