Concerning the interpreting of, among other things, supervised visits to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s secure units. Also severe criticism of Hall Prison for its processing of an inmate’s granted visitor permits etc.

Summary of the decision: In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman expresses an opinion on the interpreting of supervised visits to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s secure units when the conversation cannot be conducted in a language staff understand. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has no objection to visits being primarily supervised by prison staff with relevant language skills. However, in her opinion, this must not mean that, in practice, approved contact for an inmate of the secure unit who speaks a language other than Swedish with their friends and family is restricted.

Hall Prison’s previous procedure was that it would never employ external interpreters when inmates on the secure unit had visitors. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there were no legal grounds for this procedure and the arrangement clearly meant that an inmate’s right to contact with friends and family was dependent on which language they spoke. She is highly critical of this.

In the case in question, this procedure meant that an inmate was granted visitor permits on a condition that could not be fulfilled. Moreover, it was more than two years until he could receive visits, something that only occurred after the Parliamentary Ombudsman had commenced her review. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the prison is deserving of severe criticism for its processing of the individual’s visits. She also expresses criticism of how the prison dealt with the inmate’s repeated questions concerning how he could go about actually arranging visits from his family.