ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The experts did not discuss at length aspects and good practice on external monitoring bodies, given the wealth of information and guidance already available. They recommended drawing on the wide array of standards and sources relating to monitoring, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT),130 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) Standards,131 as well as manuals such as the OHCHR Manual on Human Rights Training for Prison Officials.132 The UNOPS Technical Guidance suggests that an office should be provided within a prison that can be used by inspectors when conducting their work.133 Objectives for internal and external inspection The Essex group highlighted that Rule 83(2) clarifies the objectives for both internal and external inspections/monitoring, as follows: •  Ensuring management in line with existing laws, regulations, policies and procedures; •  Protecting the rights of prisoners; and •  Bringing about the objectives of penal and corrections services. The participants emphasised that compliance with laws and regulations includes regional and international standards, and in particular the revised SMR; and that the ‘objectives of penal services’ need to be interpreted in line with Rule 4, i.e. delivering a rehabilitative function. The experts highlighted the requirement of ‘regularity’ of both internal inspections and external monitoring visits in Rule 83(1). They noted that inspections must be frequent enough to enable effective monitoring of conditions, changes and developments whilst allowing for flexibility in terms of prioritising inspections in more problematic prisons. The Essex group underlined that the existence of inspections or the establishment of a monitoring body should not result in the reduction of access to prison facilities for other actors, such as nongovernmental organisations who frequently deliver an important distinct function when visiting prisons. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights has underscored that the work undertaken by NGOs and other groups constitutes a positive and complementary input to the duty of the State as a guarantor of the rights of persons under its custody.134 Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 130  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), CPT Standards: “Substantive” sections of the CPT’s General Reports, 2015, CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 – Rev. 2015, para. 54. 131  Human Rights and Prisons, p. 137: ‘Internal inspection is not in itself sufficient. It is therefore essential that there should also be a form of inspection which is independent of the prison system’. 132  Technical Guidance for Prison Planning, based on the Nelson Mandela Rules, p. 225. 133  I/A Court H.R., Matter of Mery Naranjo et al. regarding Colombia. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 05, 2006, Considering 6. I/A Court H.R., Matter of Monagas Judicial Confinement Center (“La Pica”) regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. February 09, 2006, Considering 14. I/A Court H.R., Matter of Carlos Nieto et al. regarding Venezuela, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 09, 2004, Considering 8. I/A Court H.R., Matter of Lysias Fleury regarding Haiti, Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 02, 2003, Considering 10. 134  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 39