C APPENDIX Dnr O 7-2018 Page 11 (21) two types of omission: non-response from the remand prison, and non-recording of client data.25 This means that there are shortcomings in the survey results, which has consequences that I will return to later in this decision. At the same time, I must note that these surveys are the only information available for those who want to try to understand the Prison and Probation Service's work with the use of isolation-breaking measures and how well the agency is able to fulfil to the requirements of the Remand Prisons Act. In 2018, the Prison and Probation Service had 4,902 inmates without restrictions in its remand prisons. The agency's report states that 67 per cent of the inmates in this category received isolation-breaking measures which involved human contact for at least two hours a day.26 This would mean that 33 per cent of the inmates without restrictions or with decisions on segregation must be described as being held in conditions amounting to solitary confinement and, as such, at risk of adverse effects. I would like to reiterate that this applies to a group of inmates who, according to the Remand Prisons Act, have the right to daily association with other inmates. For this reason, the information contained in the annual report is remarkable. Simultaneously, I would like to emphasise that if the Prison and Probation Service satisfies inmates’ right of association with other inmates, there should be no risk of these inmates then being isolated. As such, to talk in these contexts of isolation-breaking measures is therefore wrong. In my opinion, such measures should only need to be used on inmates who are placed in segregation. It must be regarded as a serious failure that the Prison and Probation Service offers inmates isolation-breaking measures instead of association with other inmates. The significance of shortcomings in the design of remand prison facilities and a lack of staff In my opinion, the details reported above are very serious. According to the agency, the single most decisive reason why the Prison and Probation Service finds it difficult to satisfy inmates' right of association with one another is “the limitations of remand prison premises”.27 The number of remand prison places with access to suitable communal spaces does not meet the need. The consequence of this is that association, according to the Prison and Probation Service, cannot take place to the desired extent. Furthermore, the heavy occupancy pressure has made it more difficult for the agency to relocate inmates without restrictions to association places. In order for the system of association See the Prison and Probation Service's annual report 2018 p. 136. See the Prison and Probation Service's annual report 2018 p. 136. See the Prison and Probation Service's reporting back on 14 June 2018 p. 2, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s dnr 416-2017. 25 26 27 – 92 –