ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES • preserve the evidence within the perimeters of the prison • ensure that officers implicated in the incident do not interfere with the investigation • protect the alleged victim and witnesses • cooperate with and support the investigative body, and; • collect and monitor occurrences of such incidents in order to identify and address any structural causes. The Essex group noted clarification by the UN Committee against Torture of the meaning of ‘prompt’ for the initiation of an investigation by the prison director, stating that this ‘must be initiated within hours or, at the most, within days’ and that relatively short delay can constitute a violation of Article 12 of the Convention against Torture.495 The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has emphasised that: ‘[t]here should be protocols and guidelines for the prison administration about cooperating with the authorities by not obstructing the investigation and by collecting and preserving evidence’.496 The experts emphasised that other than those measures required immediately after an incident, the course of enquiry should be determined, as soon as possible, by the external investigatory body, including instructions to the prison administration as to necessary measures and steps. It was emphasised that the protocols and guidelines for the preservation of evidence and forensics need to be consistent with those in the community. It should be ensured that the scene of any incident is sealed off immediately, that evidence is secured and that witnesses are protected against influence or intimidation. Preservation of evidence includes the instant securing and safe storage of CCTV footage in order to prevent it from disappearing or being manipulated. The experts rebutted frequent claims by prison administrations that sealing off the location of an incident was not possible in a prison, e.g. in the case of a suspicious death. They pointed to the fact that on the contrary, while it may be inconvenient for the operation of a prison, it is in fact easier to seal off and prevent persons from entering the scene of an incident in a prison than in the community.497 The experts noted that good management of the prison can be maintained by ensuring that evidence is secured promptly and professionally by the appropriate authority so that the scene can then be properly disinfected and returned to use as soon as possible. Another key element of protocols for incidents are measures to prevent interference in the investigation and reprisals against victims or witnesses. Officers implicated in an incident should therefore not have any contact with the relevant prisoner or witnesses. Similarly, the experts considered that any officer allegedly implicated in incidents under Rule 71 should also not have any contact with members of the victim’s family. The experts raised that states, and prison administrations, need to ensure accountability for any infringements of Rule 71, and that any alleged infraction should be reported to the independent investigatory body and the prison director. Rule 34 calls for ‘proper procedural safeguards (…) in order not to expose the prisoner or associated persons to foreseeable risk of harm’ in the context of healthcare personnel Blanco Abad v. Spain, Comm. No. 59/1996, para. 8.5. See also: Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd ed.), Kehl am Rhein, Engel Verlag, 2005, p. 434. 495  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 65. 496  They noted the example of a fatality on the road, requiring the closure of the road. 497  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 121