2. SAFETY, SECURITY AND DIGNITY FOR ALL 17 The WMA also clarifies that body cavity searches may be performed by a physician to protect the prisoner from the harm that might result from a search by a non-medically trained examiner. Potentially harmful situations include non-medically trained staff examining prisoners that are pregnant or suffer from conditions such as severe haemorrhoids.113 Similarly, the CoE has stated that “…an intimate medical examination should be conducted by a doctor when there is an objective medical reason requiring her/his involvement”.114 18 When health-care professionals conduct body cavity searches, they should clearly explain to the prisoner that the search is a non-medical procedure, and that the usual conditions of medical confidentiality do not apply, because authorities will be informed of the results of the search. 19 There may also be emergency situations in which health-care professionals working in the prison have to intervene in body cavity searches. This includes situations in which items hidden inside body cavities are likely to cause serious injury to the prisoner. 20 Health-care professionals may also be called to attend to a prisoner following a cavity search if it has resulted in injury. 2 CONTEXT: WHEN BODY SEARCHES CONSTITUTE TORTURE OR OTHER ILL‑TREATMENT [2.4] Body searches can amount to torture when they are carried out with the intention of inflicting severe mental or physical pain or suffering on the person being searched. The risk of torture and other ill‑treatment is particularly high when searches are conducted systematically, when not strictly necessary, when they disproportionately target particular groups of prisoners and when carried out by a member of the opposite sex. Searches might also violate the prohibition of torture and other ill‑treatment when conducted using force. They can also result in physical injuries, especially if conducted by an untrained member of staff. The following examples of searches have been qualified as constituting torture or other ill‑treatment by regional and international bodies: – The SPT has asserted that intrusive vaginal and anal inspections shall be prohibited.115 – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found that strip searches can constitute degrading treatment when not justified by compelling security reasons and/or due to the way they are conducted.116 The Court has also recognized that for searches to be degrading or humiliating, “it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others”.117 – The Inter-American Court on Human Rights (IACHR) considered a finger vaginal inspection carried out by several hooded staff members at the same time, in a very abrupt manner, “constituted sexual rape that due to its effects constituted torture”.118 – The UN Special Rapporteur on torture has found that body searches, in particular strip and invasive body searches, can constitute ill‑treatment when conducted in a disproportionate, humiliating or discriminatory manner. The Special Rapporteur has also identified other prohibited practices to include: inappropriate touching, handling amounting to sexual harassment during searches and routine vaginal examinations of women charged with drug offences. These practices have a disproportionate impact on women, particularly when conducted by male guards. When conducted for a prohibited purpose or for any reason based on discrimination and leading to severe pain or suffering, strip and invasive body searches amount to torture.119 113. Ibid, para. 8. 114. Recommendation Concerning the Ethical and Organizational Aspects of Health Care in Prison, Council of Europe, 8 April 1998, No. R (98) 7, para. 72. 115. See: the United Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) reports on the visits to Argentina, 27 November 2013, CAT/OP/ARG/1, para. 72; and to Brazil, 5 July 2012, CAT/OP/BRA/1, para. 119. 116. Iwanczuk v. Poland, Application no. 25196/94, 15 November 2001; Shennawy v. France, Application no. 51246/08, 20 January 2011; Valasina v. Lithuania, Application no. 44558/98, 24 July 2001; Frerot v. France, Application no. 70204/01, 12 June 2007. 117. Tyrer v. UK, Application no. 5856/72, 25 April 1978, para. 32. 118. Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 25 November 2006, para. 312 at www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/ articulos/seriec_160_ing.pdf. See also: para. 309 to 312: In para. 310, the Court considers that “sexual rape does not necessarily imply a non-consensual sexual vaginal relationship, as traditionally considered. Sexual rape must also be understood as act of vaginal or anal penetration, without the victim’s consent, through the use of other parts of the aggressor’s body or objects”. 119. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture, A/HRC/31/57, op. cit. 27, para. 23. Guidance document on the Nelson Mandela Rules 59