ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Prohibition of Torture and Other Ill-Treatment The revised Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners explicitly incorporate the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (‘other ill-treatment’) into Rule 1. This is an absolute prohibition under international law, permitting no exceptions.21 It is defined in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. The Essex Group noted that the prohibition of other ill-treatment should not be understood as an abstract concept or one that does not carry the gravitas of the label of torture. It is a firmly established principle in international law with many illustrative cases decided by the regional human rights courts and commissions and UN treaty bodies.22 As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has pointed out, the prohibition of other ill-treatment covers: conditions of detention [that] can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. Overcrowding, lack of ventilation, poor sanitary conditions, prolonged isolation, the holding of suspects incommunicado, frequent transfers from one prison to another, the non-separation of different categories of prisoners, the holding of persons with disabilities in environments that include areas inaccessible to them and the holding of persons without means of communication could constitute or lead to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture.23 The type of conduct or omission that falls within the prohibition of other ill-treatment continues to develop with society’s standards. Therefore, what might have been seen as acceptable treatment or conditions for prisoners 20 years ago will not necessarily be seen as acceptable today.24 As made clear by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the prohibition of other ill-treatment does not only cover intentional physical and/or mental ill-treatment that does not reach the level of torture but also covers poor conditions of imprisonment, irrespective of whether these are imposed intentionally, purposefully or for a reason based on discrimination.25 It provides a framework not just Article 7 of the ICCPR; Article 2 of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984; Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights 1981; Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights 1969; Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR). 21  For examples, see Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Cantoral Benavides v Peru (18 August 2000); Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 5310/71 (ECHR, 18 January 1978); UN Human Rights Committee, Vuolanne v. Finland, Communication No. 265/1987 (2 May 1989). 22  Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. at para 45. 23  Selmouni v France, Application No. 25803/94 (ECHR, 28 July 1998) para. 100. 24  For example, see V. v. U.K Application no. 24888/94 (ECHR,16 December 1999), para. 71 25  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 11