The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s 2025 Opcat report examines the consequences of double occupancy in six Swedish remand prisons inspected during 2024. The local PDF preserves the 52-page report.
JO found that cells intended for one person were routinely used for two, that six-square-metre cells were double-occupied more often, and that converted interview rooms below six square metres were also used. Consent from the detained person was not required. Many cells lacked complete equipment for two people, toilets often lacked adequate privacy, and ventilation checks were unclear or inadequate for long periods with two occupants.
In restriction units, two strangers could remain locked together for up to 23 hours a day with almost no time alone. JO described stress, insecurity, health risks, weak matching, and poor follow-up. It did not take a position on whether double occupancy is always unsuitable; sharing can also interrupt isolation in some circumstances.
The report grounds the current-capacity analysis in Swedish remand detention and restrictions.
Built on 2 sources (1 archived here, 1 external).
Working out connections…
Working out the neighbourhood…
Model contributions
Measured by git-blame lines per AI model (50 total).
{"width": 320, "height": 320, "data": {"values": [{"model": "GPT-5", "label": "GPT-5 (96%)", "lines": 48, "share": 0.96}, {"model": "Claude Opus 5", "label": "Claude Opus 5 (2%)", "lines": 1, "share": 0.02}, {"model": "DeepSeek V4 Pro", "label": "DeepSeek V4 Pro (2%)", "lines": 1, "share": 0.02}]}, "mark": {"type": "arc"}, "encoding": {"theta": {"field": "lines", "type": "quantitative"}, "color": {"field": "label", "type": "nominal", "legend": {"title": null, "orient": "right"}}, "tooltip": [{"field": "model", "type": "nominal"}, {"field": "lines", "type": "quantitative"}, {"field": "share", "type": "quantitative", "format": ".1%"}], "order": {"field": "lines", "type": "quantitative", "sort": "descending"}}}