ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Referring to their discussions at the first expert meeting, the Essex group stressed that such reviews need to be substantive and comprehensive assessments, rather than a brief schematic review.352 Reducing the negative impact of sanctions and restrictions Compensatory measures The Essex group drew attention to Rule 38(2) which calls on prison administrations to establish ‘compensatory measures’ for prisoners separated from the general prison population in order to ‘alleviate the potential detrimental effects of their confinement on them and on their community following their release from prison.’353 With regard to solitary confinement, the European Court of Human Rights has also called on states to ‘take steps to reduce the negative impact’.354 This means that prison administrations should put effort into raising the level of meaningful social contacts with others,355 for example by facilitating more visits and access to social activities with other prisoners, by arranging talks with social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, volunteers from NGOs, from the local community, or religious prison personnel, if so wished by the prisoner. Regular contact with family members through visits, letters, phone calls or emails are crucial for detainees. The provision of meaningful in-cell and out-of-cell activities, such as educational, recreational and/or vocational programmes, are equally important to prevent infringements of prisoners’ dignity and health, and will have a positive effect on levels of violence.356 Monitoring/inspections Given the particular risk of torture and other ill-treatment in solitary confinement, the Essex group pointed to the particular attention that monitoring bodies should pay to prisoners in isolation. The participants referred to guidance in a thematic paper published by PRI and APT, recommending that: ‘Monitors should ensure that their visits include a thorough examination of the use of isolation, segregation and solitary confinement, including its frequency and length. They should closely review the classification systems, and decisions to isolate prisoners, including whether these are based on an individual risk assessment. The use of isolation for ‘protection’ of vulnerable groups should be examined carefully. Monitoring bodies should also pay particular attention to the conditions in segregation units and their impact on the mental well-being of the prisoners, examining in particular the possibility for detainees to maintain meaningful human contact. Furthermore, monitoring bodies should inquire whether segregation is applied in a discriminatory way towards certain groups or individuals.’357 University of Essex/ Penal Reform International, Summary of Expert meeting at the University of Essex on the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Review, 21 November 2012, UN-Doc. UNODC/CCPCJ/ EG.6/2012/NGO/1, pp. 20-21 (Essex 1). 352  Rule 38(2) of the Nelson Mandela Rules. 353  Mathew v. Netherlands, Application No. 24919/03, para. 202. 354  Istanbul Statement on solitary confinement, p. 4. 355  Balancing security and dignity 2nd edition, p. 15. 356  Balancing security and dignity 2nd edition, p. 15. 357  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 92