CAT/OP/SWE/1/Add.1 page 4 Investigations (förundersökningskungörelsen 1947:948) that when a person is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence he or she shall be notified of his right to a defence counsel during the preliminary investigation and the conditions under which a public defence counsel may be appointed. 7. If a public defence counsel is to be appointed for the suspect pursuant to Chapter 21, Section 3a, the leader of the investigation is under a duty to notify this to the court (Chapter 23, Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). Sweden would like to call attention to the fact that one of the most common reasons for appointing a public defence counsel – i.e. that a defence counsel is needed by the suspect in connection with the inquiry into the offence – is not mentioned in the SPT report. Thus, the requirements laid down in Chapter 21, Section 3a of the Code of Judicial Procedure are less strict than is reflected in the report. 8. A public defence counsel shall be appointed by the court without delay. The public defence counsel can in general receive reasonable compensation from public funds for work done before he or she was appointed if it was a basic condition that he or she would be appointed as public defence counsel and a request for the appointment is made within a reasonable time after the work was initiated (cf. decisions by the Swedish Supreme Court, NJA 1959 p. 12, and a Court of Appeal, RH 2004:85). 9. As pointed out in the SPT report, the right to a defence counsel coincides with the formal notification of suspicion under Chapter 23, Section 18 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (see decision by the Swedish Supreme Court, NJA 2001 p. 344). As reasonable suspicion is a prerequisite for apprehension or arrest, the apprehended or arrested person shall, in accordance with Section 12 of the Decree on Preliminary Investigations, be informed of his right to a defence counsel during the preliminary investigation and the conditions under which a public defence counsel may be appointed (see Fitger, Rättegångsbalken, p. 24: 38b). 10. In a report (Justitieombudsmännens ämbetsberättelse 1964, p. 106 ff.), the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Justitieombudsmannen) has stated that notification of suspicion fulfils an important legal function. This notification provides the suspect with several legal safeguards. Omission to notify a person who, by an objective assessment, should be considered to be under reasonable suspicion must be regarded as improper (see Underrättsförfarandet enligt nya rättegångsbalken, published by the Board on Procedural Issues [Processnämnden] 1947, p. 255, and Ekelöf, Rättegång V, 6th ed, p. 109). 11. The conduct referred to in the report – delaying notification under Chapter 23, Section 18 of the Code of Judicial Procedure until after 24(8) questioning is finished – must generally be regarded as inappropriate. In these situations notification should normally have been conducted at an earlier stage. From that point on, the suspect would have had the right to request that a public defence counsel be appointed. A suspect does not necessarily have to be arrested for a public defence counsel to be appointed for him, since the requirements laid down in Chapter 21, Section 3a are less strict than described in the SPT report. 12. Sweden asserts that the framework contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that a person receives information about the conditions under which a public defence counsel may be appointed as soon as he or she is considered to be under reasonable suspicion. From this point the suspect can request that a public defence counsel be appointed. It is normally at this point that the suspect has reason to fear that his or her interests may be encroached on. It should, however, be emphasised that even before this point – as a result of the amendments that entered into force on 1 April 2008 – everyone has a right to have counsel present when being questioned