isolation of individuals held on remand 92 with others. Another reason is that there are not enough staff allocated to man the common areas. In the view of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Prison and Probation Service deserves very serious criticism for the continued shortcomings in these respects, shortcomings that lead to restrictions on a fundamental right for the inmates. Isolation-breaking measures Today, the Prison and Probation Service measures its work with the use of isolation-breaking measures seven times a year. The Prison and Probation Service carries out isolation-breaking measures on all inmates held on remand, i.e. even inmates who have a legal right to associate with others. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises in her decision that if the Prison and Probation Service satisfies inmates’ rights to associate with others, then there is no risk that they will be isolated. In this context, to talk of using isolation-breaking measures is, therefore, wrong. Such measures only need to be used for inmates who are segregated. In the view of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, it must be considered a serious failure that the Prison and Probation Service offers inmates isolation-breaking measures instead of association with others. Only measures regarded as meaningful human contact are isolationbreaking The Prison and Probation Service’s reporting on the use of isolation-breaking measures includes activities that mean that inmates both meet other people and spend time alone outside their cells. The latter category of activities includes, inter alia, inmates being alone in an exercise yard or gym. In order for a measure to be effective and isolation-breaking in the true sense of the word, it must – in the view of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman – mean that an inmate has meaningful human contact. This can be, for example, receiving a visit or spending time with another inmate. In the view of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, measures that do not involve such human contact should be reported as different types of environmental changes. The Prison and Probation Service’s measurements of the use of isolation-breaking measures The method the Prison and Probation Service uses to measure the use of isolation-breaking measures has a number of shortcomings. As a result, there is uncertainty concerning the figures presented by the agency. According to the Prison and Probation Service, the few measurement occasions mean that differences between the years can be caused by chance. Comparisons between the years should, therefore, be made with great caution. Furthermore, according to the Prison and Probation Service, there is a risk that details are missing because a remand prison does not respond to the survey or does not register activities. In December 2017, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman called on the Prison