ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Prison authorities therefore need to act with due diligence in both the prevention of, and response to risks. The due diligence principle implies periodic assessments of risks and safeguards. Safety and security should inherently be key performance targets in a prison system. The SMR acknowledge the importance of the safety of prison staff, and recognise it also as a right. If prison staff are not safe, it is difficult for them to provide for the safety of prisoners. Scope/meaning of safety and security There may not be a clear differentiation between the terms ‘safety’ and ‘security’ (used in Rule 1). Prison security may be used more often to describe infrastructural aspects such as the means by which escapes are prevented, while safety refers more frequently to the physical safety of individuals in prison. The Essex group emphasised that the concept of safety and security is not limited to the external perimeters of the prison, but encompasses a number of components. It requires prison administrations to take proactive measures to prevent and protect prisoners and staff from risks to their safety and security such as inter-prisoner violence, self-harm and suicide and risks arising from the prison estate and its management, such as fires and floods.383 The principle applies to prisoners as well as prison staff, visitors and any other persons within the prison walls. It entails: the protection of: •  prisoners •  staff •  visitors •  service providers in prisons such as healthcare personnel, social workers, etc •  children staying in prison with their parent; and protection from: •  abuse of prisoners by staff and vice versa •  inter-prisoner violence •  self-harm and suicide •  escape (security of external perimeters) •  illegal items such as harmful drugs, weapons, etc. •  infrastructural risks including fire safety •  natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, mudslides, etc. IACHR Report on Persons Deprived of Liberty, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc 64, para. 51 (citing the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Case of Neira Alegria et al v Peru, judgment of 19 January 1995, Series C No. 20, para. 60, which found that ‘since the State is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is the guarantor of these rights of the prisoners’). 383  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 99