42 opcat inspections and follow-up ombudsman decisions The Swedish Prison and Probation Service The Parliamentary Ombudsman has also issued a statement concerning the information provided to inmates in the prison and probation system. For this category of inmates as well, information is a prerequisite if they are to be able to assert their rights. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the information provided to inmates must be provided in a language which the inmate understands, be updated, accurate and nuanced, not least because the inmate’s has limited opportunities to acquire supplementary information. There may also be reason to follow up with the inmate to check that they have taken in the information provided.10 It is not acceptable for the Prison and Probation Service to distribute information that is twenty years old and does not describe current legislation.11 The Parliamentary Ombudsman has emphasised the importance of ensuring that information about rights and obligations and about the rules and procedures of the remand prison reaches all inmates. The Parliamentary Ombudsman sees it as alarming that inmates in the remand prison claimed that this has not been the case is. A simple measure to ensure that inmates are provided with accurate information is to give them the Prison and Probation Service’s brochure, Information for Detained Persons. This brochure states the rules on association, for example.12 Enquiries As a result of observations made during OPCAT inspections, 22 special enquiries have been initiated in the period 2011–2014.13 Below are some decisions that are of particular interest. Serious criticism of the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Nyköping Remand Prison, for a person having being detained without legal grounds. Ref. no. 20572014, decision of 4 November 2015. On 2 April 2014, an OPCAT inspection was conducted of the Prison and Probation Service’s Nyköping Remand Prison. In conjunction with this, it was observed that there were some unclear points regarding a person, N.N., who was deprived of their liberty pending the enforcement of a decision on deportation. The investigation showed that Eskilstuna District Court’s certificate of judgement stated that N.N. was to remain in detention until his deportation could be enforced. In the judgement that the District Court later drew up, the order had been changed in such a way that the detention of N.N. could continue until the deportation decision became final or could be enforced before that. 10 Ref. no. 317-2013 11 Ref. no. 2767-2013 12 Ref. no. 475-2013 13 See appendix p. 59