ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The experts noted that internal or administrative inspections under Rule 83(1) should take place according to agreed-upon standards and criteria. Prison managers must be made aware of these, to be aware of what criteria they will be assessed against. Unannounced inspections are to be encouraged. The experts recommended the scope for internal inspections be clarified, which may vary from external monitoring mechanisms. For example, it was noted that monitoring bodies established under the OPCAT are focused on a mandate to ‘prevent torture and other ill-treatment’, whereas internal inspections may also want to include broader aspects of prison management, criminal justice, or the prevention of corruption etc. The participants noted that the ability to speak openly (internally) is imperative for an internal inspection body. They discussed that to achieve the necessary authority, weight, and effectiveness it is beneficial to have a high-level public authority figure as the head of any inspection body. Reporting and follow up The Essex group referred to the wealth of information and guidance developed in recent years on monitoring methodology and the follow-up of recommendations in particular by the SPT, National Preventive Mechanisms established under OPCAT, by the Inter-American system, as well as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). Examining Rule 85(1), the Essex group emphasised that transparency of inspection and monitoring bodies is important to ensure their credibility. The participants highlighted the requirement of a written report for ‘every inspection’, which is clearly stipulated in Rule 85(1) for internal and external inspections. The Essex group considered that Rule 85(1) – ‘due consideration to making the reports of external inspections publicly available’ – must not be understood as implying that internal inspections are not made public. Rather, they noted clear guidance by international human rights mechanisms that the findings of monitoring should always be ‘made public, excluding any personal data of a prisoner without his or her express consent’.143 The participants discussed the common approach of monitoring bodies where a bilateral dialogue with the inspected detention facility is held to discuss findings and recommendations, and subsequently reports are made public. The experts stressed the importance of following up on the implementation of recommendations, including through subsequent inspections to enquire whether recommendations were implemented and whether any questions or challenges have arisen (Rule 85 (2)). CAT SMR revision observations, CAT/C/51/4, para. 57. Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 82, with reference to Rule 74 of the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. See the concern raised by the SPT, noting with concern that ‘whilst all reports prepared by the NPMs, including annual reports and visit reports, are submitted to the relevant Minister, they have never been made public’. (SPT Report on visit to Malta, CAT/OP/MLT/1, para. 35.) 143  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 42