FACTSHEET exclusively by women staff, out of the presence and sight of male staff. However, strip searches and even more so, vaginal searches, remain particularly humiliating and can be traumatic, even when carried out by female staff.45 They should therefore only ever be a last resort. coercing or discriminating them. Monitoring bodies should therefore analyse thoroughly who is being searched, how often, and under what circumstances, in order to identify patterns and potential discrimination. What could monitoring bodies check? • How are searches on women performed, and by Two female prisoners’ testimony: ‘My stomach and heart drops, when it’s close to my visitor’s time to go, because I know that I have to get strip-searched in this horrible manner’ … ‘When I went for my Parole Board Hearing, I was not able to concentrate or focus properly on the parole officer’s questions. My mind was racing and I was full of fear and panic at the anticipation of having to be put through the strip-vaginal search procedure. I began to relive this event and became very upset, almost to the point of crying. I was sweating and having breathing trouble. I was really trying to keep my composure, but all I could think about was what was going to happen after the hearing was over.’ … ‘Out of fear and retaliation I did not file a grievance. Women who did file grievances were written up, sent to seg and subject to harassment.’46 LGBTI detainees may not be protected by the requirement for searches to be conducted by a staff member of same sex, which in particular affects transsexual detainees. Monitoring bodies should therefore underline the need for a specific policy for searches of LGBTI detainees, which allows transsexual detainees to express their preference regarding the gender of the staff member performing the search.47 Authorities need to keep in mind that children in prison with a parent must never be treated as a prisoner, including with regard to searches. The UN Bangkok Rules emphasise that prison staff shall ‘demonstrate competence, professionalism and sensitivity and shall preserve respect and dignity when searching children in prison with their mother/father.48 Finally, there is the risk that searches can be used to target specific groups, with a view to humiliating, whom? • Are there special procedures regulating searches of LGBTI detainees? • Are there any specific regulations/policies relating to children accommodated in detention with their parent? Do authorities take into account that such children are not detainees? • Are some detainees or groups of detainees searched more frequently than others? What reasons do staff/ registers indicate as reasons for this difference? 3.6. Searches on visitors and staff Searches of visitors have the same rationale: to prevent them from passing dangerous or prohibited objects to a detainee, including items which could be used in escape attempts. Intrusive search procedures are likely to discourage visitors, and consequently have a negative impact on the maintenance of family and social links which are essential for reintegration following release. Procedures should recognise that visitors are not themselves prisoners and that the obligation to protect the security of the prison has to be balanced against the right of visitors to their personal privacy.49 The revised Standard Minimum Rules therefore provide that search procedures for visitors must not be degrading and be governed by principles at least as protective as for prisoners.50 Search protocols for visitors should therefore include the above safeguards as a minimum (prescription by law, necessity and proportionality, modalities and staff, as well as the prerogative of alternatives51). The revised Standard Minimum Rules also explicitly state that bodycavity searches of visitors should be avoided, should never be applied to children, and should capture the principle that searches of visitors require their consent, although access to the facility may be made contingent upon a search.52 There should be clear rules about the types of items that are prohibited in detention and the information on these rules should be made visible to all visitors. 45. See PRI/APT, Women in detention: a guide to gender sensitive monitoring, 2nd edition, 2015. 46. American Civil Liberties Union, http://www.aclu.org/invasive-search <accessed 28 October 2013> 47. See PRI/APT, LGBTI persons deprived of their liberty: a framework for preventive monitoring, 2nd edition, 2015; see also the Directive on Searching of Inmates issued in June 2013 by the Canadian Correctional Service, including an annex on ‘Transgender searching requirements’. 48. Rules 21 and 49 of the Bangkok Rules, see also revised Standard Minimum Rules and, Rule 29 (2). 49. Coyle A, A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, p65. 50. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 60. 51. In 2011, the Government of Argentina decided to install detectors to control the entry of relatives in prison (they are not fully in place yet). See CELS Derechos Humanos en Argentina, Informe 2012, p231. 52. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 60. Penal Reform International | Body searches: Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment |7