ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Restrictions, discipline, sanctions and searches à O n searches, see also Chapter 1 à O n disciplinary measures and procedures, see also Chapter 5. The Essex group noted the role of fair and transparent disciplinary rules for the safety and security inside prison. However, they emphasised the effectiveness of a system of incentives and recommended that prison managers make more use of positive motivation as compared to disciplinary sanctions. Searches of prisoners, visitors and staff were discussed in relation to the prevention of dangerous items being brought into prison (Rules 50-52 and 60), but it was noted the risk searches may have on the right to human dignity. The Inter-American Principles and Best Practices provided examples of measures to prevent violence against – or between – persons deprived of liberty, and call on prison staff to: ‘Effectively prevent the presence of weapons, drugs, alcohol, and other substances and objects forbidden by law, by means of regular searches and inspections, and by using technological and other appropriate methods, including searches to personnel.’409 The experts highlighted that safety and security require clear and transparent prison rules, with rights and obligations that are made known to the prisoners upon admission and which they have access to and understand (see Rules 54, 55). While staff must enforce discipline as a means of maintaining order, Rule 36 also makes clear that discipline must operate ‘with no more restriction than is necessary’. Methods of delivering safety based on incapacitation alone – for example, through universal lockdowns, or excessive use of force – are ineffective and unlikely to deliver a safer environment. ‘Member States have to ensure that prisons are secure, safe and well-ordered but are not run in an oppressive or brutal manner. It is the duty of the prison authorities to implement the sentence of the court, not to impose additional punishment. The term ‘firmness’ in Rule 27 of the SMRs is not to be confused with harshness, but should be understood to mean consistency and fairness in all measures that aim to establish good order and in all disciplinary procedures. On the same basis, firmness should never be understood to imply the use of unnecessary force, the strict limitations of which are explained in Rule 54 of the SMRs.’410 The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, for example, observed that ‘the increasingly strict prison regime, lack of employment opportunities, lost parole, long hours of lock down, etc., may have a bearing on increased levels of violence’.411 Principle XXIII (1d) of the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of People Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. 409  Open-Ended Intergovernmental Expert Group on The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Working paper prepared by the Secretariat, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 6 November 2012, UNODC/CCPCJ/ EG.6/2012/2. 410  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 New Zealand, 28 July 2014, CAT/OP/NZL/1, para. 35 (SPT Report on visit to New Zealand). 411  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 105