9 THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S SPECIAL C ASE RE VIE W ON THE ISOLATION OF INMATES IN REMAND PRISON the Prison and Probation Service’s remand prisons are designed to keep inmates segregated, rather than in association with other inmates. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Prison and Probation Service deserves very serious criticism for its continued shortcomings in this issue, which in turn lead to restrictions of a fundamental right. 9.2 Measures to break the isolation of inmates As is clear from section 7, the Prison and Probation Service has an objective to ensure that inmates who are not allowed to associate with other inmates are offered isolation-breaking measures for at least two hours per day. The Prison and Probation Service conducts regular surveys of the extent to which inmates with restrictions or who are segregated receive isolation-breaking measures. Table 2 in section 7 shows that in 2018 the agency received 6,089 inmates with restrictions. The surveys show that only 17 per cent of inmates with restrictions received isolation-breaking measures involving human contact for two hours or more per day. In her decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that it is very concerning that the Prison and Probation Service’s own surveys show that in 2018, 83 per cent of those held on remand with restrictions were held in conditions amounting to solitary confinement and, as a result, at risk of suffering both damage to mental health and physical injuries. In her decision, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that a variety of information has been provided regarding which inmates are included in the category in- mates with restrictions. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it cannot be ruled out that this category –in addition to inmates with restrictions and inmates who are placed in segregation – also includes inmates who have the right to associate with others. This would therefore entail inmates being held in segregation without any legal support. If this were the case, there is a risk that they would be isolated, which, in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, is remarkable. Although the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has not been able to clarify in which category these inmates belong when the Prison and Probation Service measures its use of isolation-breaking measures, she emphasises that this group has the right to associate with other inmates. Therefore, this group of inmates should be included in the category inmates without restrictions. The current uncertainty regarding the presentation of the measurement results means that it is not possible to clarify the extent to which the agency is able to satisfy the right of association with others for inmates. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that Sweden has received international criticism for several decades for, inter alia, keeping inmates held on remand in isolation. This is therefore not an issue which has suddenly arisen. As detailed in section 6, the situation has also been highlighted by National Council for Crime Prevention. These shortcomings have been pointed out by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen on several occasions. In this context it is, in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, very serious that the Prison and Probation Service has not progressed further in its work in reaching its own objectives for the use of iso- – 60 –