RESTRIC TIONS ON VISITS AND LEAVE tion of the routine in these cases was not proportionate. She further stated that it was unclear whether the Prison and Probation Service had taken into consideration the Convention on the Rights of the Child in its decision to impose restrictions.14 The Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that there were reasons for the Prison and Probation Service to consider how the other restrictions that had been introduced and relate to children of inmates comply with the Convention. As a rule, inmates must make telephone calls within the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s INTIK system. However, an inmate in a security class 1 prison may not call IP telephony within INTIK, and a previous investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen shows that prisons in higher security class (1 and 2) are restrictive in granting telephone permission to use mobile phones. In order to compensate for the lack of opportunity to make calls within INTIK, the Prison and Probation Service, in certain cases, may grant inmates permission to call outside of this system. Such conversations are to be intercepted by the Prison and Probation Service’s staff unless that is clearly unnecessary.15 In the questionnaire conducted by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, inmates at Hall prison (security class 1) expressed the view that the restriction on the possibility to receive visits had not resulted in any compensatory measures outside the INTIK system. One inmate described the situation as such: “I am not allowed to receive visits from loved ones, I can understand this. What is more problematic for 14 Article 9 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states, States Party shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests. 15 See Chapter 7, Sections 12–14 of the Prison and Probation Service’s regulations and guidelines and ref. no. 2689-2015 in the Parliamentary Ombudsmen Annual Report Summary 2017/18. 6 me and the others is that we are not allowed to call our relatives even though we are not on restrictions. We are told that contact must be made by letter. With the INTIK-system, the person you want to call must have fixed telephony, not IP telephony or mobile, which almost everyone has. This also applies to those who have young children on the outside. This is stressful.” Information emerged that inmates’ contact with adult relatives could amount to as little as one ten-minute conversation a month. Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson stated that this was a very limited opportunity for contact with relatives, and she emphasised that both the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s medical expert and its expert in psychology had stated that this is a risk factor for significant psychiatric ill health amongst inmates. The National Board of Institutional Care Likewise for those admitted to the National Board of Institutional Care’s institutions, the restrictions on visits and the possibility of spending time outside of the institution’s confines had negative consequences for its residents. An obvious consequence of the general restriction on visits was that residents covered by the Care of Abusers Act and the Care of It is central that both Young Persons Act were residents and visitors not able to receive visits from relatives. During the receive the right inforinspection of the special mation about what the residential youth home imposed restrictions Tysslinge, several resientail dents stated that they had been informed that their parents were not allowed to visit. During the inspection, information also emerged – 47 –