MEASURES IN C ASE OF A SUSPEC TED OR CONFIRMED INFEC TION care, it is more difficult to assess to what extent it is possible to proceed on a voluntary basis. This is especially true in the case of consent that can be perceived as a waiver of a constitutionally protected right. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, in such contexts, there is a significant risk that volunteering will become an illusion. In the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, this applies not least to people with suspected or confirmed mental illnesses, which may affect their decision-making abilities. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman was, therefore, hesitant concerning the extent of the possibility to rely on the principles of the Communicable Diseases Act concerning voluntariness and personal responsibility, without risking the rule of law. She then stated the following:12 “However, I perceive it as that the National Board of Forensic Medicine, in the absence of other alternatives, has allowed people suspected of being infected to stay voluntarily in their rooms and not be with other patients. The agency has thus – in accordance with the principles of the Swedish Communicable Diseases Act – allowed patients to take their own responsibility for reducing the risk of the spread of infection. I have no basis for assessing what the conditions for any real voluntariness looked like in these particular cases, but would like to emphasise the importance of the National Board of Forensic Medicine taking the necessary measures to ensure, in such situations and as far as is possible, that the inmate or patient clearly understands that it is a voluntary measure and that it documents the individual’s position and what information it is based on. 12 See the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 15 October 2020, ref. no. O 21-2020. 3 3.4 Decisions on separating people deprived of their liberty from others People deprived of their liberty have the right to associate with others. For the activities investigated, different preconditions apply for the possibility of limiting this right. The Prison and Probation Service In a number of situations, the Prison and Probation Service can decide that an inmate should be segregated from the other inmates. Inmates in a prison may, inter alia, be temporarily segregated from each other, if this is necessary to maintain order or safety and security. In a petition to the Government on 8 May 2020, the Swedish Prison and Probation Service highlighted a need to change the provision in the Prisons Act that allows for inmates in prisons to be temporarily segregated from others.13 According to the agency, there was a need to clarify that such segregation may last for longer than one day if there are special reasons.14 The intention is for the Swedish Prison and Probation Service to be able to decide on segregation for longer periods of time in order to deal with large staff losses as a result of the spread of infection. The agency considered that, in any case, a temporary regulation should be introduced that provided this possibility. Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson emphasised that in a crisis, there are significant risks that amendments to the law are made in very short timeframes and based on limited preparation, which will restrict the freedoms and rights of individuals. She stated that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service already has far-reaching possibilities under the Prisons Act to place 13 See Chapter 6, Section 5 of the Prisons Act. Other provisions governing segregation were not covered by the petition. 14 See the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s petition for amendments in legislation regarding segregation in a prison for reasons of order and security (The Prisons and Probation Service ref. no. 2020- 6677). – 21 –