PEOPLE DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERT Y BELONGING TO AN AT-RISK GROUP IN C ASES OF INFEC TION 4 Service for using these departments for placing inmates for reasons other than security.4 In the questionnaire provided by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to inmates in, inter alia, Hall prison, one inmate gave the following description: “If the preconditions exist – place inmates from at-risk groups in a department which other inmates do not access. What is then decisive concerning whether these at-risk inmates should be physically close to one another or be spread out in the facility depends on access to a toilet in the living area. It is not preferable for inmates from at-risk groups to share a toilet with others. If it is not possible to protect clients from at risk groups through differentiation – strive to ensure they maintain a distance of at least 2 metres from other clients. “ During the investigation, it emerged that there was overcrowding in the remand prison and prison system, and inmates stated that they could not maintain a physical distance from others. Parliamentary Ombudsmen Katarina Påhlsson stated that it appeared difficult for the Prison and Probation Service to protect inmates who belong to an at-risk group in other ways than differentiating them from other inmates. During the inspection of Beateberg prison, it emerged that inmates belonging to at-risk groups were given the opportunity to stay in a special department. However, the Parliamentary Ombudsman was concerned that information had emerged that, in Hall prison, inmates who were in an at-risk group had been offered the chance to stay in a department in the prison’s high-security unit (Fenix). These are departments that are designed to be able to receive inmates in cases where the Prison and Probation Service has made a special decision on a security placement. This is the most closed and restrictive environment within the prison regime, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously directed serious criticism at the Prison and Probation “I declined because of the restrictive environment staying there would entail. Walks in exercise yards with grid cages, no chance to exercise, no sports hall, no work or occupational activity and we would live there together with a maximum of 6 people in the department. This includes people who cannot speak Swedish. I would also lose my regular place here at Hall, which means that I would remain in the “bunker” indefinitely. That is why I said NO. ” During the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s inspection of the prison, it emerged that all the inmates except one refused a placement in the Fenix building. Parliamentary Ombudsman Katarina Påhlsson stated that there existed a fear among inmates that they would lose their regular places and as a result remain in the department. Furthermore, she also questioned whether the measure was compatible with the Prisons Act’s basic provision that a controlling or coercive measure may only be used if it is in reasonable proportion to the purpose of the measure. If a less intrusive measure is sufficient, it must be used. She then stated the following:5 “In order to achieve the desired purpose, it would have been sufficient to place inmates who belong to an at-risk group in a regular department. The Prison 4 See ref. no. 6384-2014 in the Parliamentary Ombudsmen Annual Report Summary 2015/16.. 5 See the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s decision of 30 June 2020, ref. no. O 122020. – 27 –