other ombudsman decisions of importance to the rights of persons deprived of their liberty 48 Inmates’ contact with the outside world Outdoor access As regards outdoor access, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has recommended that persons who are deprived of their liberty by the police for 24 hours or longer be offered the opportunity to spend time outdoors (see CPT Standards, Extract from the 12th General Report, p. 48) One question that has arisen in connection with the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s supervision of the correctional care system is how the rights of persons deprived of their liberty are satisfied. Pursuant to the Aliens Act, there is the opportunity to place detained aliens in a remand prison or in a prison. During an OPCAT inspection,1 it was noted that this category of inmates has limited opportunities for both phone calls and visits and that they lacked the opportunity to contact the outside world via the internet. According to the Prison and Probation Service’s instructions, detainees’ contacts are to be checked in advance, and their conversations may be monitored. The Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated the matter and found that the Prison and Probation Service’s considerations and instructions meant that the detainees’ right to contact the outside world has not been fully satisfied in remand prisons and prisons. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, this in turn demonstrated the inappropriateness of placing detainees in such facilities.2 The question of inmates’ opportunities to contact with the outside world has arisen in several cases. In one case, a prosecutor was criticised for having refused to send two letters from a person who was on remand with restrictions. The refusal was motivated by the fact that the letters were not written either in Swedish or English.3 Another case concerned a patient under institutional compulsory psychiatric care who had submitted a complaint to be forwarded to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen. The complaint was not sent on to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, but was instead placed in the patient’s medical records. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen criticised this action.4 The Parliamentary Ombudsmen also directed criticism at a clinic that conducts compulsory psychiatric care because it had imposed general bans on the use of mobile phones and computers.5 In a decision concerning the Prison and Probation Service, the Parliamentary Ombudsman noted that a remand prison had, in practice, limited inmates’ opportunities to contact the outside world on the basis of Chapter 6, Section 2 of the Act on Detention. According to the Prison and Probation Service’s regulations, inmates are themselves to be able to control how much daylight enters their living quarters. The detainees in the remand prison lacked this opportunity because the remand prison’s management wanted to prevent them from contacting persons 1 Ref. no. 3198-2012 2 Ref. no. 5529-2012 3 Ref. no. 7229-2010 4 Ref. no. 3748-2011 5 Ref. no. 4465-2010