6 RESTRIC TIONS ON VISITS AND LEAVE the Enforcement of Secure Youth Care and the Care of Young Persons Act have been allowed to receive visits during the period for which the decision on general visiting restrictions applied.” apply for visits. For the same reason, there was a risk that the staff had the misconception that they did not need to assess such applications. The Parliamentary Ombudsman then stated the following:9 The Swedish Migration Agency At the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s initial dialogue meeting, the management of the Swedish Migration Agency stated that they had made the assessment that there was no legal basis for the agency to be able to decide on a general ban on visits to detention centres. On 15 March 2020, the Swedish Migration Agency took an administrative decision to limit temporarily the possibility for detainees to receive visits. This restriction meant that only legal representatives were given the opportunity to visit a detainee. In a risk analysis attached to the decision, it was stated, inter alia, that a decision would be provided once an inmate had applied to receive a visit. The Swedish Migration Agency also produced an information sheet for detainees concerning the visiting restrictions. It stated the following: “Due to the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s recommendations aimed at reducing the spread of the corona virus, we will temporarily limit the possibility of visits to the detention centre. We do this out of consideration for the detainees and our employees. The decision is valid until further notice. “ Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant stated that, in his opinion, there was an obvious risk that this information provided to the detainees could be perceived as the Swedish Migration Board having introduced a general ban on visits and, as such, detainees not being able to “In my opinion, however, it is inappropriate to give instructions in the way that the Swedish Migration Board has done, as they can be perceived as a general decision on visiting restrictions, which in turn risks leading to detainees not receiving an individual assessment of their right to receive visits and appeal any subsequent decision. The Swedish Migration Agency needs to consider how it can ensure that detainees’ rights to receive visits are processed in accordance with the prevailing rules.” The Parliamentary Ombudsman also stated that there was reason for the legislator to consider whether the provision in the Aliens Act fully corresponds to the need for visiting restrictions due to any infection control reasons that may arise as a result of an epidemic. The National Board of Forensic Medicine In connection with the investigation of the National Board of Forensic Medicine, it emerged that, at the beginning of July 2020, the agency had only considered a few applications to receive visits. In one of the decisions, the agency had only stated the very high risk of the spread of Covid-19 as the reason for the refusal. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning emphasised the importance of stating in the assessment which factual circumstances exist which then mean that the prerequisites in the invoked law are deemed satisfied. 9 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 9 October 2020, ref. no. O 182020. – 44 –