ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The Essex group suggested that the terms ‘independent national authority’ and ‘judicial or other competent authority’ need further clarification and noted that a complaints mechanism is distinct from an external (preventive) monitoring body.461 They also suggested that Principle 33(1) of the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment indicates that a higher authority needs to be involved (‘authorities vested with reviewing or remedial powers’). The experts mentioned the practice of employing non-operational members of staff (not wearing uniform) as ‘contact officers’, and they were seen positively by prisoners as less threatening and more approachable. At the same time, the experts cautioned against assigning ‘wing leaders’ or ‘yard bosses’ as recipients of informal complaints462 as such a system is open to abuse and constitutes self-governance in contradiction to Rule 40(2). Distinction between requests and complaints The SPT has documented problems with requests and complaints procedures due to lack of ‘distinction between a request and a complaint, both being submitted on the same forms and processed in the same way’, stating that ‘As a result, simple requests are not dealt with quickly, and serious complaints can be trivialised’.463 The Essex group confirmed that the majority of complaints are related to day-to-day issues, conditions of detention and basic services such as food, telephone calls, appointments with doctors, recreational, work-related or educational activities. Many of these can be solved without a lengthy complaints procedure and with modest financial means.464 As both the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the SPT have noted these types of requests/dayto-day complaints could be addressed by delegating independent, dedicated persons to receive and handle minor complaints and ensure that steps are taken within a reasonable period of time to set aside funds required to give effect to these rights.465 Also, many incidents can be resolved by prompt action by the prison staff. The experts clarified that requests and complaints can be brought against acts as well as omissions of the prison administration/ staff. Effectiveness of complaints mechanisms The SPT stressed that ‘the mere existence of complaints mechanisms is not enough; they must be, and must be seen to be, independent and impartial, and should offer guarantees of effectiveness, promptness and expeditiousness’.466 Rule 57 describes procedural aspects, applicable to ‘every request or complaint’, (emphasis added) i.e. all types described under 1) to 5). It stipulates that they must be: The emphasis of external monitoring mechanisms is on the prevention of torture, through the identification of systemic risk factors contributing to an environment where torture or other ill-treatment arise, and recommendations in order to address and rectify these risk factors. The function of complaints mechanisms, by comparison, is to investigate individual cases of torture and ill-treatment, to adjudicate on the facts of the case and redress for the individual victim. 461  Participants mentioned the system of ‘ward leaders’ in East Africa, and ‘Chaveiros’ in Latin America, for example. See, for example, concerns expressed in SPT Report on visit to Mali, CAT/OP/MLI/1, paras. 31, 91. 462  SPT Report on visit to New Zealand, CAT/OP/NZL/1, para. 44. 463  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 78. 464  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 78. 465  SPT Report on visit to Brazil, CAT/OP/BRA/1, para. 32. 466  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 116