as “may”. In addition, the person concerned did not need to make any particular request to have an interpreter; interpretation was provided ex officio. 82.However, the delegation noted that the Swedish Bar Association had some concerns as to the realization of this right in practice. According to information provided by the Association, in a recent report from the National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet), the lack of adequate interpretation is given as one of the major reasons why individuals of foreign origin do not enjoy equal procedural rights. 83.The SPT emphasizes that every person who does not understand the Swedish language should be provided with free assistance of an interpreter in all cases where he or she is gives a statement to or is questioned by the police, is heard by the court or wishes to communicate with his/her defence counsellor in connection with his/her case. The SPT recommends that the authorities take steps to ensure that access to interpretation is guaranteed in practice. B. Remand prisons 84.As noted in the introductory chapter above, the delegation targeted its visit on the evaluation of the regime of remand prisoners under restrictions, but reviewed also some other issues relating to remand custody. For that reason it interviewed only those remand prisoners who, at the time of the visit, were held under restrictions. 1. Basic Safeguards (a)Access to a Lawyer 85.All the detainees interviewed by the delegation and asked whether they had a defence counsel replied affirmatively, and noted that they enjoyed unrestricted access to their counsel and could discuss with them in confidence. This applied equally to private or public defence counsel.The SPT welcomes this very positive state of affairs. (b)Information on rights and about the rules applicable in the remand custody 86.Under chapter 12 section 5 of the Remand Regulations (Kriminalvårdens föreskrifter och allmänna råd för behandling i häkte, KVFS 2007:1), the detainee should be informed upon arrival, among other things, about his/her rights and duties in remand custody. However, it does not clearly specify what those rights include. Section 14 specifies that the detainee shall be given information, among other things, on applicable rules and the regime in the remand prison. At Uppsala Salagatan remand prison the delegation was provided with an example of the information sheet, giving the detainees the information required in section 14 and some other practical information on, for example, visits and possibilities to see a nurse or a doctor (Klientinformation - Information för anhålna och häktade, Häktet Uppsala Salagatan). In Kronoberg, a sheet of paper describing some basic rules was attached to each cell, and a detainee also showed the delegation an information sheet describing the rules in greater detail (Information och ordningsregler vid häktet). 87.Several detainees interviewed by the delegation in both Uppsala and Kronoberg remand prisons alleged, however, that they had been given only very summary or even no information on the applicable rules or about their rights. In the view of the SPT, the prerequisite for the proper exercise of rights is that upon arrival, detainees are promptly informed about their rights and the applicable rules and the regime. The SPT recommends that in accordance with the legislation in force, the detainees are systematically given information on their rights, the applicable rules and the regime in remand custody. The information should be given in a language the detainee can reasonably be supposed to understand. The document used in Uppsala Salagatan remand prison could be used as an example. (c)Recording of custody 88.During its visits to the remand prisons, the delegation also paid attention to the keeping of registers and recording of custody. All information related to a detainee is saved on computer, from personal information to restrictions, and from decisions concerning visits to complaints. Also a journal was kept in the file of each individual detainee where everything related to that person was registered (including possible complaints, the time when restrictions were lifted, the possibility for the detainee under restrictions to call certain persons, use of restriction due to security reasons etc.). 89.The delegation noted that the registers were kept in a systematic manner and contained detailed information on the situation of each remand prisoner. Access and read-only rights were granted on the basis that this was necessary for performance of a staff member’s official duties. The detainee has a right to see all information about him/her that is included in the system. 90.However, although the record system itself was computerised, the delegation learned that much of the information was recorded from different paper forms forwarded to the remand prison upon arrival of the detainee. For example the staff working at the register office of one establishment visited were of the opinion that the system they now use is not very practical and noted the need for a centralized record system specifically designed to record the person’s entire period in custody from the time of arrest or even apprehension to the time the person leaves the remand prison. This would mean that ideally the police, prosecutors, courts, remand prison staff and probation authority would have access to the same system and could fill in information related to their respective fields of responsibility. The delegation understood that there had also been some discussion between the authorities on the need to develop such a record system. 91.In the view of the SPT, a centralized record system would offer multiple advantages contributing to the prevention of ill-treatment: information on an individual case would need to be entered only in one system and updated there, which would prevent possible duplication of work and overlapping of information, as well as the risk of having conflicting