C APPENDIX Dnr O 7-2018 Rights, called on Sweden to ensure that, inter alia, all restrictions are timebound, necessary and proportionate, and that appropriate measures are taken to mitigate isolation, especially for young inmates.14 Previous statements from the Parliamentary Ombudsmen The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has also previously stated its views regarding the Prison and Probation Service restricting inmates' rights of association with other inmates. At the end of the 1990s, there was a shortage of places in the Prison and Probation Service resulting in overcrowding, etc. The then Parliamentary Ombudsman Jan Pennlöv noted that the reference to a lack of resources as a justification for this was commonplace and that it is obvious that the legislation regarding association between inmates is null and void if there are insufficient resources. He emphasised that he was aware that, for other reasons such as the composition of the group of inmates, it may sometimes be difficult to allow inmates to spend time with one another. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Jan Pennlöv, however, such difficulties – which are partly due to a lack of places – cannot be a reason not to, as far as it is possible, to apply the rules allowing for association between inmates.15 In a later decision, the then Parliamentary Ombudsman Cecilia Nordenfelt stated that the legislative provisions on the conditions for inmates in the now repealed Act (1976:371) on the treatment of inmates in prisons and remand prisons can be seen as a minimum regulation of the rights of each inmate. It is not acceptable that the ability to associate with other inmates is reduced or even eliminated for reasons of a lack of resources.16 The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has, thereafter, returned to the issue of insufficient resources within the Prison and Probation Service. The then Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabet Fura stated that a lack of resources or a lack of opportunity for internal differentiation of inmates are not acceptable reasons for keeping an inmate segregated from other inmates.17 In a decision in June 2018, I emphasised that I share the opinion expressed by, inter alia, the former Parliamentary Ombudsman Jan Pennlöv. I observed that the Prison and Probation Service did not seem to have taken the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s opinions fully into account, and, in this context, I noted that the occupancy rate in the country's remand prisons at the time of my decision was lower than when the Parliamentary Ombudsman Jan Pennlöv made his statement. In my opinion, it is deeply unsatisfactory that an inmate is not given See CCPR/C/SWE/CO/7 paragraph 29. See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2001/02 p. 155. See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2006/07 p. 139. 17 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2015/16 p. 191. 14 15 16 – 88 – Page 7 (21)