other ombudsman decisions of importance to the rights of persons deprived of their liberty two months. The Prison and Probation Service was seriously criticised for not having attempted at an earlier stage to rectify the inmate’s situation by means of a new placement.14 The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticised a forensic psychiatry clinic for deficiencies in its documentation of coercive measures. Criticism was also expressed of the clinic’s use of a special procedure – known as restriction – for patients assessed to have a need to be in a limited area with a less stimulusrich environment and little contact with other patients. The Parliamentary Ombudsman had no objection in itself to care personnel coming to an agreement with a patient for him or her to be in a certain space to have peace and quiet. However, the Parliamentary Ombudsman was critical in many respects that the clinic used a procedure and a concept so similar to the coercive measure of placement in isolation. Among other things, the Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that it cannot be accepted that the room in which patients in isolation stay is used for the purpose in question.15 Handcuffs and mechanical restraint In one decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has criticised a regional forensic psychiatry clinic for having handcuffed a patient who was subject to compulsory psychiatric care in connection with them being mechanically restrained, despite the lack of legal support for this. The clinic was also seriously criticised for the doctor responsible for the mechanical restraint not personally examining the patient prior to each reconsideration (extension) of the measure.16 During an inspection of the Prison and Probation Service, Helsingborg Remand Prison, it was revealed that an inmate had been placed under mechanical restraint on numerous occasions. It also emerged that there were some unclear points concerning the procedures in connection with such coercive measures. The issue of mechanical restraint in the case in question was investigated as part of a special enquiry. The decision emphasised that medical examination in connection with mechanical restraint is obligatory and that a doctor is to be called immediately when an inmate is mechanically restrained. The Parliamentary Ombudsman criticised the remand prison for having made the assessment in conjunction with the use of mechanical restraint that there had been no “urgent need” for a medical examination. The remand prison was also criticised for not having taken any further action, e.g. summoning an on-call doctor, after it had emerged that the remand prison’s doctor was busy. Finally, the decision underlined the importance of personnel being 14 Ref. no. 6211-2013 15 JO 2014/15 p. 477, ref. no. 1169-2012 16 JO 2014/15 p. 461, ref. no. 4471-2011 51