(a)Legal framework 103.Under Chapter 24, section 5 a) of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (Rättegångsbalk), if the District Court decides to detain a person, it shall simultaneously, at the request of a prosecutor, consider whether the detained person’s contact with the outside world may be restricted. Under the same section, this restriction is possible only if there is a risk that the suspect will remove evidence or in other ways impede the investigation. The court must review the decision concerning restrictions once a fortnight at the same time as it holds a new hearing on continuation of the remand custody. The person concerned may appeal the District Court’s general decision to impose restrictions. However, it is not possible to appeal the prosecutor’s decision on individual restrictions. 104.The prosecutor uses a specific form to request general permission to impose restrictions (Anvistningar angåenge gripen/anhållen/häktad) which should, after a change made in legislation in 2005, include the grounds for the request. The request itself as well as its grounds is presented orally at the remand hearing. The delegation was informed in a meeting with the Local Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm that the request does not usually need to be supported by any concrete evidence; a risk that the person might impede investigations suffices. 105.Permissible individual restrictions are laid down in the Act on the Treatment of Persons Arrested or Remanded in Custody (Lag om behandlingen av häktade och anhållna m.fl). These include restrictions on association with other detainees, visits, letters, telephone calls and access to newspapers, radio and television. Prosecutors are not required to specify at the court hearing which restrictions they intend to apply; this is left to the discretion of the prosecutors. Under chapter 1 section 2 of the Regulations and General Advice on Treatment in Remand Custody (Kriminalvårdens föreskrifter och allmänna råd för behandling i häkte, KVFS 2007:1), the individual restrictions decided by the prosecutor have to be reviewed by the remand prison staff and registered in the client administration system. 106.The Ministry of Justice informed the delegation that it is currently considering a proposal prepared by a working group for a new Act on the Treatment of Persons Arrested or Remanded in Custody (“Ny häkteslag”, SOU 2006:17) and that, based on the suggestions in the study, the Government intends to present a bill for a new act to the Parliament in autumn 2008. 107.The main changes proposed in the study are: that the prosecutors would have to specify in the request which restrictions they wish to impose; that the court should decide on each individual restriction; and that there would be a right to appeal on the District Court’s decision on specific restrictions. In addition, the delegation was informed by the Ministry of Justice that the Government has, in its annual letter 2008 for prosecutors, asked the Public Prosecution Offices to account for how many persons have been detained in 2008 and in how many cases restrictions have been imposed. On the basis of information received, the Government will describe and analyze essential differences between different parts of the country and the findings will be reflected in the new draft law. (b)Reasons for restrictions 108.As the court proceedings in Sweden are based on the principle of immediacy, the court may base its judgements only on what has been presented orally in the court hearing. The authorities argue that for this reason restrictions are often necessary to ensure that the suspect cannot impede the investigations by, for example, trying to influence the statements of witnesses or possible accomplices. 109.The SPT understands that the restrictions are sometimes lifted during the investigation at the time when the police have gathered enough material evidence. In addition, restrictions could also be lifted gradually. However, the SPT was informed by both prosecutors and the senior officials working at remand prisons, that remand prisoners are often held under some restrictions until the moment when the court proceedings are initiated, or even until the moment the court gives its decision, as it is considered that until that time there may be a risk that the suspect would try to harm the investigations. (c)Facts found 110.From its discussions with the authorities and interviews with the detainees the delegation was given to understand that the judges do not usually question the prosecutor’s evaluation as to the need to impose restrictions; when there are grounds to remand a person in custody, the attached request for restrictions is usually accepted without remark. In the meeting with the Local Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm the delegation was informed that complaints against decisions on restrictions are rare. 111.However, in the meeting with the Local Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm, the delegation was also informed that the authorities recognize the need to address routine approach to the requests for restrictions. The delegation was informed that, in an attempt to tackle this phenomenon, there is a new practice in place in the Stockholm region: a new judge always reviews the need to continue remand custody and decides on restrictions. The prosecutor is thus required to substantiate the case at every review. 112.At the time of the SPT visit, 47 % of the detainees held at Kronoberg, 50 % at Uppsala Salagatan and 30 % at Uppsala Blankahuset respectively were subjected to restrictions. From the discussions with the authorities and the staff working at remand prisoners and from the interviews with the detainees themselves, the delegation learned that the most commonly applied restrictions were on association with other detainees, visits, letters and telephone calls. 113.The delegation was informed that there are no official statistics as to the time persons are held on remand. However, for example in Kronoberg remand prison the officer in charge noted that the longest time someone had been held there was three years, but estimated that usually detainees are held there for 1 year maximum, the average being three to four months. In the meeting with the Local Public Prosecution Office in Stockholm, the delegation was informed that, if a person stays in remand custody for a longer period than three to four weeks, the possible restrictions are usually gradually lifted. This was the case in particular with regard to restrictions on access to newspapers, magazines, television or radio; other restrictions were usually maintained for longer periods. This was also confirmed both by staff working at remand prisons and by the detainees themselves. 114.Almost all detainees interviewed by the delegation stated that they had not been given much information about the imposition of