APPENDIX Dnr O 7-2018 Page 12 (21) places to work, the Prison and Probation Service must, in my opinion, ensure that there is sufficient space for association purposes so that the right of association with other inmates for large parts of the day can be met even for those placed there. It seems unreasonable that an inmate should have poorer opportunities to associate with other inmates simply because he or she has been placed in an association place instead of in an association department. Within the Prison and Probation Service, work is underway in an attempt to address the lack of association places. In its reporting back to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen in June 2018, the agency reported a number of renovation projects to its premises which means that, by the end of 2018, there would be 161 additional places in remand prisons for inmates without restrictions. Of these, 88 places are located in units with special association departments.28 This is, of course, a welcome addition, but I fear it is far from sufficient in meeting the real need. As stated above, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen has previously stated that the state of the premises and practical conditions are not acceptable reasons for not satisfying inmates’ statutory rights of association with other inmates. If, for example, the lack of communal spaces is accepted as a reason for refusing an inmate association with other inmates, it would completely dilute the right that inmates are be guaranteed by the Remand Prisons Act. In connection to the above, I would additionally like to emphasise the importance of the Prison and Probation Service's remand prisons having sufficient staffing levels to be able to satisfy both inmates' basic rights of association with others and the need for isolation-breaking measures for inmates placed in segregation. During a number of Opcat inspections in 2019, the Prison and Probation Service expressed the view that there are insufficient staffing levels for them to be able to achieve the Prison and Probation Service's objectives for isolation-breaking measures. During an inspection of Malmö Remand Prison in April 2019, representatives of the remand prison stated its staffing level is based on an occupancy rate of 90 per cent. As the remand prison usually has a higher occupancy rate, it is not possible for the remand prison to achieve its objectives for isolation-breaking measures even with normal occupancy rates.29 Similar information emerged during an inspection of Göteborg Remand Prison in February 2019, where the remand prison's restriction department did not have the sufficient level of staffing to achieve the national targets for the use of isolation-breaking measures.30 The department had 58 places and an additional position had been 28 See the Prison and Probation Service's reporting back on 14 June 2018 p. 3, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s dnr 416-2017. 29 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 27-2019 p. 5. 30 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 7-2019 p. 6. – 93 – C