the police authority 27 earlier statement that the information could alternatively be posted on the wall or door of the cell.36 Monitoring The Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously stated on several occasions that the documentation of supervision must reflect the actual time when the supervision took place. This indication of time can be of decisive importance in enabling subsequent examination of what has happened to an individual held in custody. It is a basic requirement with regard to legal certainty and control that the documentation of supervision is made in accordance with the applicable rules. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has also stated that it is important that detailed notes are kept in connection with supervision.37 During the inspection of the police custody facility in Luleå, it emerged that the facility guards signed the supervision sheets before the supervision took place. It further emerged that it was consistently written that the supervision took place at 00, 15, 30 and 45. In the view of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Police Authority needed to take the necessary measures to ensure that the documentation of supervision reflects the real circumstances.38 During the inspection of the police custody facilities in Arvika and Kristinehamn, it emerged that the notes of observations made during supervision were often deficient. The detainees’ status was often stated in no other way than “awake” or “asleep”. Similar observations were made at the police custody facility in Växjö. Following the inspections, the Parliamentary Ombudsman called on the Police Authority to take the necessary measures to ensure that inspections carried out are documented correctly.39 Police custody guards’ training During the inspection of the police custody facility in Luleå, information emerged that showed that the guards who are employed by the hour were in need of extra training. Furthermore, it emerged that civilian guards were being recruited to replace the guards employed by the hour during office hours. Guards from a security company were supposed to staff the facility for the rest of the time. The Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that it is important that the new guards, as well as the security company’s guards, receive the necessary training for them to be able to work in the police custody facility.40 During the inspections of the police custody facilities in Arvika, Karlskoga and Kristinehamn, it emerged that the Police Authority employs guards on an 36 36 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 12 and 13, ref. no. O 47-2019. 37 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 11, ref. no. 6465-2017 and report p. 6, ref. no. 6291-2014. 38 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 5 and 11, ref. no. O 2-2019. 39 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 6 and 11, ref. no. O 47-2019, report p. 4 and 5, ref. no. O 49-2019 and report p. 4, 5 and 8, ref. no. O 21-2019. 40 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report p. 2, 3 and 12, ref. no. O 2-2019. It is important that monitoring is documented in a detailed manner