40 opcat inspections and follow-up ombudsman decisions Outdoor access for persons deprived of their liberty within the compulsory psychiatric care system The Parliamentary Ombudsman has also issued a statement concerning opportunities for persons deprived of their liberty receiving care under the compulsory psychiatric care legislation to spend time outdoors. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision concerning the Forensic Psychiatry Unit at Falköping Hospital5 stated, among other things, that the basic premise should be to give patients the opportunity to spend at least one hour per day outdoors. In the same decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman took a position on the question of whether balcony access can be equated to outdoor access. The Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that the aim of care is naturally for the patient’s condition to improve so much that the need for compulsory care no longer exists. Outdoor access that is limited to taking place on a balcony cannot be considered to satisfy the patient’s needs, and such a limitation is probably also incompatible with the CPT’s recommendations. This decision has been followed up with statements in several inspection records, for example from the OPCAT inspection of Ward 34 at Löwenströmska Hospital.6 During its visit to Sweden in 2009, the CPT stated that exercise yards should have protection against harsh weather conditions. The inspection of the National Board of Forensic Medicine’s newly built examination department in Stockholm noted that the exercise yard lacked protection against precipitation. The Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that it was noteworthy that the National Board of Forensic Medicine had chosen not to follow the CPT’s earlier recommendation in its new building. The National Board of Forensic Medicine was requested to take action as soon as possible in order to give its inmates the opportunity seek shelter from precipitation etc. under a roof.7 Information about rights General During its visit to Sweden in 2008, the SPT drew attention to the fact that the police did not provide persons deprived of their liberty with information about their rights in a systematic and uniform manner. The police service responded that a draft information sheet8 existed, but that for various reasons it had not been finalised. The SPT then recommended that the police service 5 JO 2011/12 p. 471, ref. nos. 6823-2009 and 2196-2010 6 Ref. no. 4580-2012 7 Ref. no. 5229-2013 8 The National Police Board’s and the Prosecutor-General’s information sheet (Information for persons suspected of a crime and therefore deprived of liberty).