ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES makes it clear that prisoners must have access to legal aid and outlines measures to be introduced to ensure this. It was stressed that the right to legal aid applies in all criminal cases, including those involving terrorism and other serious offences.185 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has consistently maintained that the right to defence is a central component of due process, and that the right to access legal aid is a crucial part of it.186 The term ‘legal aid service provider’ (used in Rule 61(1)) is defined in paragraph 9 of the Principles and Guidelines, referring to ‘a wide range of stakeholders as legal aid service providers in the form of non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, religious and non-religious charitable organizations, professional bodies and associations and academia’. Rule 61 of the revised SMR incorporated this understanding by requesting ‘access to effective legal aid’ and the ‘services of an independent competent interpreter’ where prisoners do not speak the local language. While legal aid mechanisms and interpretation services need to be established at the level of policy-makers/central prison administration, local prison administrations and staff have a role to play in terms of practical measures to make legal aid effective within their role (see above). The Essex group stressed that it is not for prison administrations to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by the assignment of legal aid. Decisions on eligibility criteria for legal aid are outside of the mandate of the prison administration. à S ee also Chapter 5, Restrictions, discipline and sanctions – legal assistance Restrictions of access The experts stressed that restrictions on access to a legal representative constitute a significant infringement of safeguards. As a consequence, any restrictions need to be limited to exceptional situations and require clear prescription in law of the circumstances, decision-making body and remedies. This is supported by Rule 61(1) (see reference to ‘applicable domestic law’). The experts discussed that in practice restrictions refer to security concerns such as charges of organised crime or terrorist offences, and may imply a delay in access to a lawyer, denial of access, or restrictions regarding the conditions of consultation (for the latter see ‘Conditions of consultation’ below). While international standards do allow for restrictions in principle, the Essex group recalled Principle 18 of the Body of Principles, which clarifies that the right of a detained person to be visited by and to consult and communicate with his/ her legal counsel ‘may not be suspended or restricted save in exceptional circumstances, to be specified by law or lawful regulations, when it is considered indispensable by a judicial or other authority in order to maintain security and good order’. Jurisprudence has also clarified that restrictions on the principle of confidentiality are only justified if there are ‘compelling reasons’ for it, and that they must be subject to review.187 UNODC, Early access to legal aid in criminal justice processes: a handbook for policymakers and practitioners, 2014, p. 46. 185  I/A Court, Ruano Torres et al. vs El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5 of 2015. Serie C No. 303, para. 153. 186  See Commentary to EPR, commentary on Rule 23, with reference to jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. 187  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 53