114.Almost all detainees interviewed by the delegation stated that they had not been given much information about the imposition of restrictions and remained unaware of the reasons for them as well as about the possibilities to challenge the court’s decision. In particular, they said that they did not understand why their contacts with family members were restricted. Later, the delegation observed that, at least in those examples of decisions on continuation of the remand custody (Protokoll) shown to the delegation by the staff, no grounds for continuing the imposition of restrictions were recorded, nor any information on individual restrictions, as this matter was decided later by the prosecutor. 115.Furthermore, almost all detainees interviewed noted that they would appreciate the possibility to communicate more with the staff members; also the staff members regretted having little or no time to talk with the detainees, mainly due to shortage of staff. In addition to staff members, a number of persons from outside of the remand prisons work with the detainees. They may receive visits, for example, from a chaplain or other religious representative, a volunteer from the Swedish Red Cross, or a so called motivator assisting the detainees with drug problems. These visits, although allegedly quite infrequent and insufficient in number, were appreciated by the detainees interviewed. 116.In all remand prisons, in addition to having the possibility for the daily one hour outdoor exercise, they could use facilities for physical exercise usually two to three times a week. At Uppsala Salagatan they also had access to TV-room with video games for one hour every other day, as the cells were not equipped with televisions. The SPT notes with concern, however, that several detainees interviewed by the delegation in Kronoberg alleged that in practice the one hour’s time for outdoor exercise was not always respected but varied between 20 minutes and one hour, depending on the availability of staff to supervise them. 117.The application of restrictions thus means that detainees may find themselves isolated in their cells for up to 22 or 23 hours per day, usually without any other activities than the possibility to order books from the public library, reading newspapers and magazines and watching television (in Kronoberg and Blankahuset), if access to those is not restricted. The SPT notes with regret that only one detainee interviewed reported having access to work while on remand. 118.Apparently the staff working in the remand prisons endeavoured to alleviate the situation of persons held under restrictions with the means available. The delegation was informed that the detainees might, for example, be offered the possibility to request the prosecutor to provisionally lift the restrictions and grant permission for a call to a certain person, a visit by a certain person or association with some other detainee held under the same restrictions. The prosecutor then decided whether or not to grant permission. For example, the staff at Uppsala Salagatan noted that they did this in particular with respect of those who were not psychically well and with juveniles. This was done relatively often, and the delegation was also given a form used to this effect. This practice was confirmed in a meeting with the Local Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm. In addition, some of the detainees said that the staff had contacted the prosecutor and that they were then allowed to receive visits or call a family member. However, some detainees alleged that this procedure was rather lengthy. 119.In addition, the delegation was informed by both the representatives of Kriminalvården and staff at Kronoberg that, once restrictions were lifted, the staff endeavoured to transfer the detainees to another remand prison where they could enjoy more open conditions. However, the delegation was also informed that this was difficult to do in practice as many remand prisons were operating at full capacity. It was added that a detainee might request to stay in certain remand prison for family or other reasons and that sometimes the transfer was not possible due to reasons relating to preliminary investigations or court proceedings. 120.The delegation formed the view that both Kriminalvården and the staff working at remand prisons visited were concerned about the routine application of restrictions and the possible effects of the prolonged isolation on the detainees. The delegation also noted that the psychiatrist working at Uppsala Salagatan indicated that persons held under restrictions for prolonged periods of time usually developed some symptoms of mental problems, most commonly depression or anxiety. However, he emphasized that he could not draw any conclusions as to at what stage these problems may appear, if they do, as that depended on the background of the individual concerned. Also the psychologist working at Kronoberg remand prison noted that persons held under restrictions might be at increased risk of developing symptoms of mental problems, but noted that no scientific evidence had yet been gathered on impact of restrictions on mental health of detainees. (d)Conclusions and recommendations 121.The SPT understands that in some cases imposition of restrictions is unavoidable due to legitimate investigation purposes. However, the SPT emphasizes that restrictions must not be used in a routine manner but rather as the exception. Their imposition should always be based on concrete grounds laid down in law and they should be individualized and proportionate to the case at hand. The SPT has also studied carefully the recommendations made by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the practice of imposing restrictions and shares its views on this issue. As the Swedish Government is currently studying the need for legislative change and not all recommendations of the CPT are reflected in the legislation in force, some of the recommendations of the SPT below are similar to those made by that regional treaty body. 122. The SPT welcomes the steps taken by the government to study the need for legislative change. The SPT recommends that : The authorities implement the plans to review the legislation regarding restrictions. The grounds for imposing each individual restriction should be clearly descr ibed in law . Public prosecutors are reminded that permission to impose restrictions should only be requested when this is strictly necessary in the inte rest of criminal investigations . When requesting the court to decide on restrictions, a prosecutor should be obliged to specify the individual restrictions requested and present grounds for each restriction. The District Courts should decide on the specific restrictions instead of only giving a gener al permission for imposing them .