8 THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S INSPEC TIONS OF REMAND PRISONS 2015–2019 of association with one another being limited due to a lack of resources. In the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s opinion, this lack of resources is of a more general nature and it is clear that legislating on the issue of inmates’ right of association would be toothless if the necessary resources were lacking. A lack of places in remand prisons cannot be used to justify not applying, insofar as is possible, the rules on the application of association rights.20 The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has further stated that the legislative rules regarding the conditions of inmates can be seen as a minimum level regarding the rights of each inmate, and that it is not acceptable for the possibility to associate with others being restricted or even withdrawn totally due to a lack of resources.21 Finally, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen stated that neither a lack of resources nor the inability to differentiate inmates internally are acceptable reasons for keeping an inmate segregated from other inmates.22 The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman stated the following regarding this issue: “I share the opinion that the Parliamentary Ombudsmen first expressed a little over 15 years ago. The Prison and Probation Service does not seem to have taken the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s opinions fully into account, and I note in this context that the prison population rate in the country’s remand prisons is lower now than just over 15 years ago. In my opinion, it is deeply unsatisfactory that an inmate is not provided with the opportunity to associate for organisational reasons or other reasons that an inmate cannot influence. I question the Prison and Probation Service’s opinion that it is not an issue of 20 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2001/02 p. 155, dnr 801-2001. 21 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2006/07 p. 139, dnr 2273-2005. 22 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2015/16 p. 191, dnr 1277-2014. segregation when an inmate, in such cases, cannot associate with other inmates. Considering that chap. 1 Section 6 of the Remand Prisons Act refers to less intrusive restrictions of an inmate’s liberty, I am not of the opinion that an inmate can be placed in insolation on the basis of this legislative provision due to current circumstances and practical considerations. The prevailing situation implies actual segregation, and inmates are subject to a degree of isolation that exists for those inmates who have restrictions. Additionally, an inmate does not have the opportunity to have his or her isolation reviewed or tested by a court of law. From the perspective of the inmate, this is extremely unsatisfactory.”23 8.4 Shortcomings in some remand prisons The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has additionally had a particular focus on the fact that the Prison and Probation Service uses premises that are not fully adapted for remand prison operations. As such, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen has, above all, been critical of the fact that the shortcomings, for example the lack of communal spaces makes it impossible to conduct appropriate operations on the premises. This criticism is with regard to the remand prisons in Halmstad, Visby and Östersund. Both Halmstad Remand Prison and Östersund Remand Prison were using police custody facilities during the inspections. The remand prisons have been established in premises which were never intended for such operations. During the inspections, the remand prisons were described as “temporary”. The temporary operation in Halmstad had, at the time of inspection in February 2017, la23 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2018/19 p. 157, dnr 5969-2015 – 48 –