ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Effective control over the prison population The Essex group emphasised that in order to ensure safety and security in prisons, prison authorities must exercise effective control over the prison population.401 Prisons monitored only at the perimeters give rise to grave threats to the safety of prisoners, as highlighted by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, for example: ‘[T]he fact that the State exercises effective control of the prisons implies that it must be capable of maintaining internal order and security within prisons, not limiting itself to the external perimeters of the prisons. (…) It is not admissible under any circumstance for the prison authorities to limit themselves to external or perimeter surveillance, leaving the inside of the facilities in the prisoners’ hands. When this happens, the State puts the prisoners at permanent risk, exposing them to violence in the prison and to the abuses of other more powerful prisoners or the criminal groups that run such prisons.’402 The experts noted problems in many countries due to self-governance or ‘shared governance’ where prison management is left too much, often even entirely, to prisoners. Human rights bodies have documented, for example, hierarchies of cell and yard bosses left in charge of day-to-day management, including entry to the prison compound and cells, enjoying considerable privileges in their detention conditions.403 Other reports document prisoners deciding on who would receive or be denied medical care;404 or discipline and protection of detainees delegated to privileged detainees who, in turn, ‘use this power to their own benefit’.405 Rule 40, which remained unchanged by the review, does not rule out systems based on selfgovernance, but specifies its limitation to ‘social, educational or sports activities’. It also clarifies that this ought to take place ‘under supervision’ and that disciplinary functions must never be entrusted to prisoners. The UN Subcommittee on Torture, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, as well as the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, have all emphasised concerns about self-governance UN Committee against Torture, 46th session, Fourth annual report of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 3 February 2011, CAT/C/46/2, para. 57: ‘It is axiomatic that the State party remains responsible at all times for the safety and well-being of all detainees and it is unacceptable for there to be sections of institutions which are not under the actual and effective control of the official staff’. Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/261, para. 49: ‘The fundamental role of authorities to exercise effective control over places of deprivation of liberty and ensure the personal safety of prisoners from physical, sexual or emotional abuse should be further strengthened as one of the most important obligations (see the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders, para. 9, and the European Prison Rules, rule 52.2). In this respect, preventive measures include increasing the number of personnel sufficiently trained in using non-violent means of resolving conflicts’. Also see UN Committee Against Torture, 47th Session, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention: Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Bulgaria, 14 December 2011, CAT/C/BGR/CO/4-5, para.23 (c), and UN Human Rights Council, 7th Session, Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak: Addendum: Mission to Paraguay, 1 October 2007, A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, para.90 (t). These cover the prompt and efficient investigation of all reports of inter-prisoner violence and prosecuting and punishing those responsible; and offering protective custody to vulnerable individuals without marginalizing them from the prison population more than is required for their protection. 401  IACHR Report on Persons Deprived of Liberty, para. 53. 402  Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to Mali, 20 March 2014, CAT/OP/MLI/1, para. 59 (SPT Report on visit to Mali). 403  IACHR Report on Persons Deprived of Liberty, para. 540. See also para. 583, stressing that relatives and others visits in correctional facilities run by systems of ‘self-governance’ or ‘shared governance’ were directly exposed to kidnapping, extortion, acts of forced prostitution, and all types of abuse and assault perpetrated by those who de facto exercise control in these prisons. 404  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 47. 405  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 103