9 THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S SPECIAL C ASE RE VIE W ON THE ISOLATION OF INMATES IN REMAND PRISON restrictions takes place at the expense of other inmates’ rights to associate with each other during as much of the The Prison and Probation day as possible. The Prison and ProbaService must be able to tion Service must, of satisfy both inmates´ right course, have an opeof association with other ration that can both satisfy inmates’ right inmates and isolationof association with breaking measures other inmates and prevent inmates from being isolated. At the meeting, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also raised the issue of inmates who are denied associating with others, despite the fact that they are neither placed in segregation nor held with restrictions. According to the Prison and Probation Service, such situations can arise when, for example, an inmate cannot be placed in an association department due to lack of places. Another reason why inmates are placed in segregation is that there are no other inmates in the department who have the right to associate with other inmates. At the dialogue meeting, the representatives of the Prison and Probation Service stated that there should be no inmates held in such conditions, and that the agency is aware that it is breaking the law in these situations. An inmate who is denied the possibility of association with other inmates must, in accordance with the Prison and Probation Service’s routines, receive an explanation as to why he or she cannot be offered an association place and how the agency is working to change the inmate’s situation.2 Section 8.3 shows that the clearest reason why the Prison and Probation Service has difficulty providing inmates with the opportunity to associate is, according 2 to the agency, the “limitations of remand prisons’ premises”. The number of remand prison places with access to appropriate communal spaces does not correspond to the demand. The According to the Prison consequence of this is that the level of as- and Probation Service, the sociation offered, acagency lacks sufficient cording to the Prison communal spaces and Probation Service, is not to the desired extent. Furthermore, the heavy occupancy pressure due to an increasing remand prison population has made it more difficult for the agency to relocate inmates without restrictions to association places. This is also confirmed by the agency’s statistics reported in section 7. Table 2 in section 7 shows that, in 2018, the agency received 4,902 inmates without restrictions into remand prisons. The proportion of inmates in this group who received isolation-breaking measures that involve human contact of at least two hours per day was 67 per cent. This means that 33 per cent of inmates without restrictions were held in conditions amounting to solitary confinement and thus risked the associated negative consequences. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the information that has emerged in this regard is remarkable. This is a group of inmates who, by law, have the right of association with other inmates. If this right is met, there is no risk of an inmate being isolated. To talk in this context of isolation-breaking measures, in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, is wrong. Such measures should only be considered in relation to inmates who are kept in segregation. See The Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 7-2018 p. 7. – 58 –