The State party should take appropriate measures to further reduce the imposition of restrictions as well as their length. The Committee is of the view that restrictions should always be based on concrete grounds, individualized and proportionate to the case at hand and lifted immediately when the grounds for their imposition no longer exist. As an exceptional measure, they should be interpreted narrowly, and in case of doubt, in favour of the individuals. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government has recently enjoined the Prosecution Authority to account, by the end of the year, for the number of persons in detention in 2008 and the number of cases where restrictions have been imposed and encourages the State party to submit this information to the Committee. Coercive measures, including physical restraints and isolation (17) The Committee regrets that the State party could not provide aggregated data on the average length of the use of physical restraints or isolation in psychiatric institutions and hospitals. However, it notes that the National Board of Health and Welfare is currently preparing an on-line register for compulsory mental care and forensic mental care with the aim, inter alia, to produce reliable statistical data on the use of coercive measures (arts. 11 and 16). The State party should review the use of physical restraints and further limit the use of solitary confinement as a measure of last resort and for as short a time as possible under strict supervision. The State party is encouraged to complete the on-line register as soon as possible. Prompt and impartial investigations (18) The Committee notes that the National Police-related Crimes Unit was established in 2005 and that the 2007 report “Summa Summarum - an independent authority for investigations of criminal allegations against police officers and prosecutors?” did not recommend the establishment of an independent authority for such investigations but rather a more clearly separated unit for internal investigations within the police. However, the Committee is concerned at information that the basic precepts of independence, effectiveness and promptness may not have been observed in all cases of complaints of police misconduct (arts. 12 and 16). The State party should strengthen its measures to ensure prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment committed by law enforcement officials. The Committee is of the view that such investigations should not be undertaken by or under the authority of the police, but by an independent body. (19) The Committee notes that Swedish courts have jurisdiction with regard to all crimes committed by Swedish troops deployed abroad in the course of duty, regardless of the law of the state where the criminal act may have been committed. The Committee also takes note of the information provided by the delegation in respect of the incident that took place during the international UN/EUFOR Operation Artemis in the Congo in 2003. However, the Committee expresses its concern at allegations that a prisoner was tortured by French soldiers in the presence of Swedish soldiers and that the State party did not call for a prompt and impartial investigation in this respect (arts. 5 and 12). The State party should call for prompt and impartial investigations if it receives information indicating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment have been committed while conducting its international operations. The State party should also ensure that Swedish troops are instructed to report such incidents and take other measures, as appropriate. Compensation and rehabilitation (20) While noting information on treatment and social rehabilitation services provided to, inter alia, victims of torture and ill-treatment, the Committee is concerned that, as these services are conducted in many different ways, it is difficult to get an overview of the actual situation, including possible regional discrepancies. In this respect, the Committee regrets the lack of aggregate information on how often these different kinds of services have been utilized or on what resources are allocated to victims of torture or ill-treatment for psychiatric services. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that there has been no case decided by or is currently pending before any Swedish courts concerning claims for compensation or other kinds of redress to victims of torture (art. 14). 76