ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Types of sanctions and restrictions Prohibited sanctions and restrictions While focusing their deliberations on specific provisions, the Essex group recalled a number of sanctions and restrictive measures explicitly prohibited by the Nelson Mandela Rules: 1) collective punishment (Rule 43(1e) 2) restrictions of general living conditions (Rule 42)299 3) indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement (Rule 43(1a, 1b), see below) 4) placement in a dark cell (Rule 43(1c)) 5) placement in a constantly lit cell (Rule 43(1c)) 6) corporal punishment (Rule 43(1d)) 7) reduction of a prisoner’s diet or drinking water (Rule 43(1d)) 8) collective punishment (Rule 43(1e)) 9) use of restraints as a punishment (Rule 43(2) 10) torture and any other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Rule 1) 11) being sanctioned twice for the same act or offence (Rule 39(1)). The Essex group pointed to the distinction between acts that can be pursued at the level of prison administrations as disciplinary offences, and those that need to be investigated and prosecuted by judicial authorities.300 They shared the assessment of the Special Rapporteur on Torture who asserted that ‘Any act that may amount to a crime should be dealt with by the authorities of justice administration and not by penitentiary or prison staff’.301 The CAT has held that ‘[a]ny offences committed by a prisoner which might call for more severe sanctions should be dealt with through the criminal justice system’.302 The experts pointed out that any other form of punishment that constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited. They recalled jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which has held that certain disciplinary punishments, including bodily punishments, placement in dark cells and prolonged confinement, as well as any other measure that could cause harm to the physical The Essex group recalled that a provision on the reduction or suspension of food has been deleted in the course of the review as it is incompatible with international law (Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, para. 58; Principle XI Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights). 299  See deliberations on this question in ECtHR, Campbell and Fell v The United Kingdom (ECHR 28 JUN 1984). 300  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 57. 301  CAT SMR revision observations, CAT/C/51/4, para. 33. 302  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 84