ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES It was stressed that inspectors should ‘not limit their activities to seeing prisoners who have expressly requested to meet them, but should take the initiative of visiting the establishments’ detention areas and entering into contact with inmates’. 139 External monitoring body The Essex group recommended that, when establishing such institutions, states should ensure a clear distinction between internal and external inspections. The participants emphasised that ‘independence’ requires that the body is not under the same institutional, hierarchical or organisational structure as the prison management. They noted that guidance can be drawn from Article 18 of the OPCAT, which specifies the term as implying functional independence as well as the independence of the monitoring body’s personnel. Principle 29(1) of UN Body of Principles, regarding supervision of places of detention, refers to ‘a competent authority distinct from the authority directly in charge of the administration of the place of detention or imprisonment’. The Essex group noted that adequate resources and the monitoring body’s ability to decide upon their use constitutes a vital factor in the independence of external monitoring. The experts discussed the requirement expressed in Rule 84(2) for external inspection teams to be composed of ‘qualified and experienced inspectors’ and reiterated that guidance can be drawn from the OPCAT. The Protocol requires members to have ‘proven professional experience in the field of the administration of justice, in particular criminal law, prison or police administration’, and calls on states to ‘strive for a gender balance and the adequate representation of ethnic and minority groups in the country’.140 They pointed to the explicit mention of health-care professionals (including forensic doctors) as members of inspection teams, which constitutes established good practice.141 The Essex group recommended that experience in monitoring methodology and knowledge of international standards is considered a requirement when appointing members of an inspection team. The participants noted the appointment by ‘a competent authority’ in Rule 84(d) and emphasised that in order to ensure independence such a body must not be appointed or approved by the government. The wording of Rule 84(d) illustrates that there may be distinct competent authorities appointing different inspectors. The participants highlighted that the term ‘competent authority’ is used in different contexts throughout the SMR and that any explanatory note needs to ensure consistency with other references (see rules 34, 37, 41(1), 45 (1), 56(3), 71(1) and 85(2)).142 Internal inspections The Essex group considered that internal inspections should also, to the extent possible, have an element of independence. Under no circumstances should internal inspection mechanisms replace or be presented as external. CAT SMR revision observations, CAT/C/51/4, para. 57. 139  Articles 5 and 18 (2) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. 140  The UN Committee against Torture stressed that inspectors should be ‘trained to detect signs of torture or other ill-treatment, including sexual violence’ (CAT SMR revision observations, CAT/C/51/4, para. 58). 141  Further guidance on inspections can be found in APT’s publications Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture: Implementation Manual and Establishment and Designation of National Preventative Mechanisms. 142  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 41