ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The Essex group reiterated that the non-discrimination requirement in Rule 58(2) means that the right to conjugal visits equally applies to prisoners in a same-sex relationship and/or for partners who are not legally married. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the right to private and family life as not confined to legally acknowledged relationships.174 In regards to the conditions of conjugal visits, the location and design of the visiting rooms must be private, in line with the right to privacy and family life, equipped with sanitary facilities and a bed.175 Access to legal representation The Essex group welcomed the fact that the revised SMR acknowledge the right of both untried and convicted prisoners to have access to legal representation and not only in the context of their criminal procedure. The experts acknowledged that the revised Rules introduce general provisions for ‘any legal matter’ (Rule 61), and attach additional safeguards in the context of pre-trial detention (Rules 119, 120), while the entitlements and modalities of access to legal advisers and legal aid providers ‘continue to be governed by Rule 61’. The CPT has clarified that the ‘right of access to a lawyer should be enjoyed by everyone who is deprived of their liberty, no matter how ‘minor’ the offence of which they are suspected’.176 Proceedings for which prisoners may require legal assistance beyond and outside the pre-trial and trial stages include appeals and other motions in the criminal procedure, but also civil proceedings (e.g. marital and parental affairs, inheritance law etc.), potential complaints on detention conditions and/or torture or other ill-treatment and any disciplinary sanctions or processes.177 The experts stressed that prisoners must not be required to disclose the nature of their wish to see a legal representative as it would render the safeguard void. Detention pre-trial and during trial Rule 119 incorporates state obligations relating to arrest and pre-trial detention which will predominantly be addressed to police and judicial authorities. Rule 119(1) reiterates the obligation to promptly inform every untried prisoner about the reasons for their detention and the charges against them.178 (See Chapter 2, Prison management) Yet, the reiteration of this principle in the revised SMR indicates a responsibility of prison administration to ensure that the detainee in fact has received this information. See for instance Keegan v. Ireland, Judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp. 17-18, para. 44; Kroon and others v. The Netherlands (Application no. 18535/91), Judgment of 27 October 1994, para. 30; Mikulić v. Croatia (Application no. 53176/99), Judgment of 7 February 2002, para. 51. 174  Technical Guidance for Prison Planning, p. 126. 175  CPT, 21st General Report of the CPT: European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: 1 August 2010-31 July 2011, Strasbourg, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, 10 November 2011, para. 20 (CPT 21st General Report). 176  The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also maintained that legal aid is a prerequisite to exercise the right to petition (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, 31 December 2011, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc 64, para. 254 (IACHR Report on Persons Deprived of Liberty)). 177  See also Article 9(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Principle 10 of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. 178  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 50