SUMMARY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S CONCLUSIONS Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling made a similar statement in his decision following the investigation of the National Board of Institutional Care. 8.2 The possibilities to separate inmates in order to counteract the spread of infection All of the agencies investigated have introduced routines, at short notice, for how staff should act in the event of a suspected or established Covid-19 infection. During the investigation, however, it has emerged that there was some uncertainty concerning how staff should act. Following the investigation of the National Board of Institutional Care, Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling stated that the agency had applied the provisions on separate care in a way that was very dubious. The investigation carried out by Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning of the National Board Since a person deprived of Forensic Medicine’s forensic psychiof their liberty is in a vul- atric examination nerable situation, there is divisions raised the a significant risk that vol- question of how far unteering will become an the Communicable Diseases Act’s proillusion visions on voluntary measures can be applied in situations where a person is deprived of their liberty, without risking to undermine the rule of law. In particular, this applies to agreements that can be perceived as the waiving of a constitutionally protected right. Since a person deprived of their liberty is in a vulnerable situation, there is, in the opinion of the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, a significant risk in this context that voluntariness becomes an illusion. This 8 applies not least in relation to people susceptible to, or with diagnosed, mental disorders that may affect their decision-making abilities. It is possible for the agencies under investigation to separate inmates in certain situations. Following his investigation of the Swedish Migration Agency, Parliamentary Ombudsmen Per A decision to separate Lennerbrant stated that cannot replace measures he did not rule out that a situation may arise under the Communicable Diseases Act where an inmate, who is suspected or confirmed to be infected with a disease posing danger to the public and who, for example, displays behaviour that risks exposing others to infection, constitutes such a danger that there exists a legal basis for a decision on segregation. However, such a decision can only be aimed at averting a fast arising and potentially dangerous situation. In the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s view, it must not therefore be the case that the agency routinely takes decisions on segregation as a measure to counteract infection. Nor can a decision on segregation replace the measures that may need to be taken in line with the Communicable Diseases Act. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning and Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling made similar statements in their respective decisions. Against this background, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Ryn- Well-functioning crisis ning pointed out that management is based an agency responsible for people deprived of on, inter alia, having the their liberty is depenpreconditions in place dent on the existence of for good cooperation well-functioning cooperation with the regions’ infectious diseases doctors who – 61 –