Complaint against the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Hinseberg Prison, concerning the treatment of an inmate during urine sampling. Also a statement on new regulations for urine sampling and the removal of menstrual health products in conjunction with this

Summary of the decision: An inmate of Hinseberg Prison was selected along with several other inmates to provide a urine sample as there were suspicions that drugs were in circulation on their wing. When providing a sample, the inmates were instructed to undress completely in front of prison officers to ensure that the purpose of the examination was not undermined by manipulation. According to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, urine samples were taken in accordance with applicable regulations. However, in the decision it is noted that, at the time of the sampling to which the case relates, the Parliamentary Ombudsman had already called into question the then rules and criticised the agency for failing to make individual assessments of whether it was necessary for an inmate to be naked when providing a urine sample (Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2023 p. 159). Given that the urine sampling in this case took place within the scope of a targeted intervention with underlying suspicions that drugs were in circulation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman feels that there is insufficient reason to criticise the prison for instructing inmates to fully undress before providing samples.

In his decision, he notes that the rules for urine sampling of inmates have been changed and are now in line with the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s statement on the matter, and that relevant provisions have been updated with regard to whether menstrual health products need to be removed when providing urine samples. The Swedish Prison and Probation Service is reminded that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously stated that a procedure in which inmates are instructed to remove a tampon in the present of staff is disproportionate. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, if it has not already done so, it is important that the agency review the need to clarify its documents and procedures with regard to the circumstances in which menstrual health products are removed.