E. Ongoing dialogue 13.The many meetings with both ministerial officials and senior officials and staff members working at the locations were very helpful in understanding the framework of the system of deprivation of liberty in Sweden. The SPT wishes to thank the Ministries and institutions for the valuable information provided. 14.At the end of the visit the delegation presented its preliminary observations to the Swedish authorities in confidence. The SPT is grateful to the authorities for the spirit in which the delegation’s observations were received. 15.The following report, produced in accordance with article 16 of the OPCAT, sets out the findings of the delegation and the SPT’s observations and recommendations concerning the treatment of people deprived of their liberty. 16.One of the crucial factors preventing ill-treatment is the existence of a fully functioning system of independent visits to monitor all places where person may be deprived of their liberty. For this reason, section II of the report is devoted to a discussion of the development of the national preventive mechanism (NPM) in Sweden. 17.In subsequent sections of the report the SPT examines the concrete situations of people deprived of their liberty in different settings in the light of fundamental safeguards and the access thereto, which the SPT considers will, if properly established and/or maintained, diminish the risk of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. The SPT makes recommendations concerning changes to improve the situations encountered and to ensure the development and improvement of a coherent system of safeguards in law and in practice. 18.The visit report is an important element of the dialogue between the SPT and the Swedish authorities aimed at preventing torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In accordance with article 16 of the OPCAT, this report remains confidential until such time as the authorities of Sweden request its publication. The SPT is looking forward to continuing the constructive discussion about ways forward. II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS A. Introduction - OPCAT 19.Under the terms of the OPCAT, the SPT is empowered to cooperate with States parties in the implementation of the Protocol, advising and assisting them in the launching of NPMs, without which the new system would be neither effective nor efficient for purposes of achievement of the objective of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (OPCAT, article 2, paragraph 4, and article 11, paragraph (b), section (i). 20.During its visit to Sweden, the SPT decided to discuss the readiness of the designated NPMs, i.e. the Parliamentary Ombudsmen (Riksdagens ombudsmän) and the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern), to carry out the tasks, as envisaged by the OPCAT for NPMs. Information gathered prior to the visit gave contradictory signals as to the views and disposition of these institutions to perform the tasks required from a NPM under the OPCAT. Furthermore, both institutions had previously make recommendations to the effect that they did not consider that they would currently meet the criteria for NPMs set out in the OPCAT and that they therefore should not be given the responsibility of acting as NPMs. They also stated that they lacked the necessary resources to undertake the mandate of the NPM. 21.In a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Justice, the SPT gathered the Government’s views on the designation process, and it also met with the designated NPMs themselves. In addition, the SPT met with interested non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on this issue. Some NGOs, while expressing the view that they had been adequately consulted, maintained that the NPM should be a newly established institution rather than the designated pre-existing ones. For other NGOs, this remained an open question while stating at the same time that the current situation was not satisfactory. B. Legal framework and designation process 22.Sweden ratified the OPCAT on 14 September 2005. The ratification took place through the ratification bill (Prop.2004/05:107, Svensk godkännande av fakultativt protokoll till FN:s convention mot tortyr m.m.) that was presented by the Swedish government to the parliament (Riksdagen) and which was debated and adopted by the latter. The ratification bill also included a proposal for the designation of the NPMs. In order to incorporate the visiting mandate of the SPT in domestic legislation, Sweden has made changes to the Act on the undertakings of Sweden against torture (1988:695). Originally, the Act enshrined the mandate of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on the basis of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the SPT is now given a similar mandate as the CPT. 23.Under the governmental proposal, two existing institutions in Sweden, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice would be designated as the official Swedish NPMs. The government’s bill provided that the mandate of these existing monitoring mechanisms fulfils the requirements of the OPCAT as to the NPMs and that there was therefore no need for any legislative amendments in respect of the designation of the NPMs. However, both institutions presented submissions to the parliament wherein they objected to being designated as the NPMs due to, inter alia, their mandate and lack of resources. In spite of these objections, the parliament adopted the ratification bill, designating these two institutions as the NPMs.The legislation relating to the mandate of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice was not amended. 24.According to the ratification bill, the NPM designations would not entail any additional budgetary implications, given that a national supervisory function was already included in the mandates of both institutions.