Restriktioner för häktade - en utredning om orsakerna till att åklagare tillgriper restriktioner

Sammanfattning: The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the Swedish constitution guarantee everyone a number of civil rights. Every citizen has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. These rights may be limited by law, presumed that these limitations have a righteous purpose in a democratic society. Investigating crimes can be considered as such a purpose. ECHR and the Swedish constitution also guarantee that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment. The convention of torture is significant in this context, as it is constructed to enhance the individual’s protection of torture and inhuman treatment. Further, a special torture committee (CPT) has been created to investigate whether countries that have signed the convention are living by its rules. Taking somebody into custody is the most interventional coercive measure that exists according to Swedish National Law. Every detention has therefore to be given support by the law. These can be divided into four types and are associated with different reasons for detention. The cause to take somebody into custody must always be strong enough to motivate the inconvenience that the individual will suffer by being in custody. An individual who has been taken into custody can be subjected to certain restrictions when it comes to communication. These restrictions generate an even stronger intrusion of the personal integrity of the individual beyond the initial detention. For a prosecutor to be allowed to impose these restrictions upon an individual, the deprivation of freedom must be based on risk of tampering with evidence. Risk of tampering with evidence implies that there is a risk that the suspect could destroy evidence or damage the investigation in another way if given the chance. Sweden has been criticized by CPT for a long period of time regarding the amount of time suspects spend in custody, the frequent use of restrictions and the lack of possibility of appealing an order of restriction. The investigation of custody conducted by the Swedish government found it difficult to explain the variations of imposing restrictions between different local public prosecution offices. Further the investigation indicated that restrictions are sometimes imposed routinely or unnecessarily. In April 2011, a new Swedish law will be coming into force. The law includes the possibility to appeal an order of court, which is not possible today. The law’s purpose is to reduce the number of persons imposed by restrictions. Because of the criticism raised against the regional public prosecution office, the Swedish government has conducted an investigation in order to evaluate the disposition of the restrictions. To respond to the criticism it is necessary to investigate why prosecutors are using restrictions in such extent. My investigation shows that prosecutors are using restrictions because of mainly there things: • Lack of guidelines giving the prosecutors instructions how and when to apply restrictions • Lack of a thorough judgment in court • Procedural law of Sweden is based on the principle of oral proceeding, the principle of immediateness and the concentrations principle. These principles make it difficult to investigate crimes without using restrictions