SWEDEN HAS RECEIVED INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM OF THE CONDITIONS FOR INMATES HELD ON REMAND 5.4 Measures taken following international criticism During the 1990s, Sweden took measures to try to address the problems that have attracted international attention. One change was During the 1990s, that prosecutors now require Sweden changed a court’s permission to impose restrictions upon an individual its rules and regulations on the held on remand.10 Furthermore, provision was introduced reuse of restrictions aquiring prosecutors to motivate to the court why he or she should be allowed to impose a certain restriction.11 Concurrently, the possibility was also introduced for individuals on remand to request that a court assess whether a prosecutor’s arguments for the use of restrictions are well-founded or not.12 With the introduction of the current Remand Prisons Act, the possibility to appeal a court’s decision on the use of restrictions was also introduced (chap. 6 § 4, third paragraph HäL). Following the CPT’s visit in May 2015, on 23 July of the same year the government decided to commission a special investigator tasked with submitting proposals aimed at reducing the use of both remand prison and restrictions. The inquiry took the name the Remand Prison and Restrictions Government Inquiry and it submitted its report Fewer in remand prison and reduced isolation (SOU 2016: 52) in August 2016. 10 See chap. 24 § 5 a RB which was introduced by SFS 1993:1408. The provision entered into force on 1 January 1994. 11 See chap. 24 § 14 second paragraph RB which was amended by SFS 1998: 601. The new provision entered into force on 1 January 1999. 12 See § 17 of the repealed Act (1976: 371) on the treatment of inmates and inmates and others, which was introduced by SFS 1998: 602. The provision is now found in chap. 6 § 4 first and second paragraphs HäL. 5 The report proposes, inter alia, that alternatives to remand prison should be introduced in the form of house arrest and area arrest. The The Remand Prison report also contains a proand Restrictions posal to introduce a limit on how long an individual can Government Inquiry be held on remand. The res- submitted its report triction would mean that a in August 2016 suspect, until prosecution is brought, can be held on remand for a continuous period of six months. This time period can only be extended further if deemed absolutely necessary. The corresponding period for a person under the age of 18 is proposed in the report as three months. Again, this time period should only be extended if deemed absolutely necessary. Similarly, the report proposed that the rule regarding mandatory remand (two-year rule) should be removed (chap. 24 § 1, second paragraph RB). Finally, the report submitted proposals which obligates a court to consider whether a prosecutor should be At the beginning granted permission to restrict an individual held on remand’s con- of 2020, there had tact with the outside world on been no changes to the basis of four special restricthe legislation tion categories. If a prosecutor obtains such permission, a court is then obligated to state in its decision the reasons for providing such. With regard to the Prison and Probation Service’s work with isolation-breaking measures, the report stated that there is a need to legislate to ensure an inmate over the age of 18 must always be entitled to at least two hours’ association with another individual every day. For inmates under the age of 18, the time should be at least four hours every day. In the report, the investigator stated that: – 31 –