RESTRIC TIONS ON VISITS AND LEAVE The National Board of Institutional Care The general restrictions on visits that were introduced meant a severe restriction on the possibility of receiving visits to the National Board of Institutional Care’s institutions, especially for people in special residential homes for substance abusers who, for a certain period of time, were completely cut off from visits by, inter alia, relatives. The visits that were allowed would initially take place outdoors as far as were possible to prevent the spread of infection. Subsequently, the National Board of Institutional Care reviewed its decision on several occasions and introduced some relief from the original restrictions. At the beginning of May, all residents were able to receive visits from close relatives in cases where a video call was not possible. Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling emphasised that it was positive that the National Board of Institutional Care had tried to reduce the negative effects of its decision by continuously reviewing the need for the visiting restrictions and, when possible, introducing some form of relief. The Swedish Migration Agency Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant noted that the Swedish Migration Agency had, to some extent, tried to compensate for the restriction on the possibilities for The Swedish Migration receiving visits by, for example, allowing deAgency should consider tainees to make video making arrangements so calls with external parthat detainees can receive ties, which was perceived as positive. He outdoor visits emphasised, however, that during the investigation of the National Board of Institutional Care’s activities, details had emerged that the agency had tried to find alternatives so that it could 6 be possible to carry out visits in an “infection-safe” way. In the event that the Swedish Migration Agency made the assessment that there was a continued need for, or reason to return to, the far-reaching restrictions on visits to detainees that applied during the spring and summer of 2020, there were reasons for the Swedish Migration Agency to consider arranging outdoor visits or taking other measures which mean that the restrictions did not have to be as extensive. The National Board of Forensic Medicine During the investigation, the National Board of Forensic Medicine’s management stated that the agency examined what measures could be taken to reduce the risk of infection during visits, for example the ability to install protective screens. In a statement to the Parliamentary Ombudsman following the dialogue meeting, the National Board of Forensic Medicine stated that it had procured and tested screens at the examination division in Stockholm and that these screens would also be arranged at the examination division in Gothenburg. Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman Elisabeth Rynning stated that the use of protective screens entails a certain restriction on a visit, but that the measure is less intrusive than a patient not being able to receive a visit at all. She, therefore, welcomed the fact that the National Board of Forensic Medicine had taken measures to achieve a reasonable balance between patients’ interest in being able to receive visits and the need to protect them from infection during the ongoing pandemic. 6.5 The significance of the Public Health Agency of Sweden’s assessments The investigations have shown that the Prison and Probation Service, the Swedish Migration Agency and the Na- – 51 –