MEASURES IN C ASE OF A SUSPEC TED OR CONFIRMED INFEC TION The Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that the purpose of the routine description in the National Board of Institutional Care’s support document was not aimed primarily at an individual’s need for care. Therefore, the Parliamentary Ombudsman was very doubtful that it was possible to apply the provisions in the manner described in the document. Parliamentary Ombudsman Thomas Norling also raised the issue of segregation. A resident may be segregated if specifically required because they behave violently or are so affected by intoxicants that they cannot be kept in order.17 In the view of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it should not be excluded that a situation may arise where a person, who is suspected or confirmed to be infected by a disease which poses a danger to the public, through their own actions constitutes such a danger to other people that there is reason to take a decision on segregation. In such a case, in the view of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the decision cannot target anything other than averting a hastily arising and potentially dangerous situation. The National Board of Institutional Care’s opportunity to decide on segregation to protect residents and staff against infection cannot, therefore, in the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, replace the measures that may need to be taken in accordance with the Communicable Diseases Act. The Swedish Migration Agency The premise is that an alien detained must be able to associate with other detainees. However, an alien’s freedom of movement may be restricted if they pose a serious danger to themselves.18 An alien who is detained and has reached the age of 18 may be segregated from other de17 Section 17 of the Enforcement of Secure Youth Care Act, Section 34 b of the Care of Abusers Act and Section 15 c first paragraph of the Care of Young Persons Act. 18 Chapter 11, Section 6 of the Aliens Act. 3 tainees, if this is necessary for the order and safety on site or if they pose a serious danger to themselves or others.19 The Swedish Migration Agency’s central document for how detention centres should act in the event of suspected or confirmed infection of Covid-19 amongst detainees states, inter alia, that staff must make a decision on restricting the freedom of movement of, or segregating, detainees who have been found to be infected with Covid-19. During the inspection of the detention centre in Flen, information emerged that infected detainees were to be placed in segregation. Parliamentary Ombudsman Per Lennerbrant stated that he did not rule out that a situation may arise where a detainee, who is suspected or confirmed as infected with a disease posing a dangNeeds for care due er to the public, for example through behaviour that risks to Covid-19 are not exposing others to infection, covered by the legal poses such a danger that the preconditions for legal preconditions exist to separate care take a decision on segregation. In such a case, the decision can only aim at averting a hastily arising and potentially dangerous situation. Therefore, the agency must not regularly take decisions on segregation as an infection control measure. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the possibility to take a decision on segregation or other restrictions of the freedom of movement cannot replace the measures that may need to be taken on the basis of the Communicable Diseases Act. The National Board of Forensic Medicine For the majority of the National Board of Forensic Medicine’s patients at the agency’s examination divisions, the 19 Chapter 11, Section 7 of the Aliens Act. – 23 –