ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES prisoners,68 discrimination, self-harm or suicide, and also the identification of any specific needs of prisoners. The experts stressed that mental health issues should not be misinterpreted as a risk factor when determining classification levels. This is supported by Rule 41(d) of the Bangkok Rules which states that the gender-sensitive risk assessment and classification of prisoners must: ‘Ensure that those with mental health care needs are housed in accommodation which is not restrictive, and at the lowest possible security level…’ Most countries allocate prisoners in low, medium and high security levels. The security level to which prisoners are subject to should be the ‘minimum necessary to achieve their secure custody’.69 However, in the absence of effective classification system, prisoners are frequently over-classified (i.e. housed in higher security facilities than necessary). The number of prisoners who present a genuine risk of escape or a risk to themselves, other prisoners or staff is usually quite small.70 Allocating prisoners to the minimum security level necessary has three primary benefits: the treatment of prisoners will be more humane (and in line with the principle of minimising differences to life at liberty); staff will have greater capacity to mitigate and minimise the risk of those prisoners who do pose an actual risk; and as higher security facilities are more expensive, there will be financial gains by minimising the number of prisoners allocated to high security levels. The Essex group highlighted the potential damaging consequences of placing low security prisoners in high security facilities/regimes and noted that certain groups are more likely than others to suffer the adverse effects of high security classification. This included women prisoners, for whom the UN Bangkok Rules require classification methods and sentence planning that address the gender-specific needs and circumstances. They specify that a gender-sensitive risk assessment shall: ‘Take into account the generally lower risk posed by women prisoners to others, as well as the particularly harmful effects that high security measures and increased levels of isolation can have on women prisoners.’71 A proper risk assessment on admission and regular review to reallocate a prisoner to a lower or higher security level forms part of this measure. In particular prisoners nearing the end of their sentence should be placed in low security accommodation to prepare them for their return to society.72 While in some countries judges handing down the sentence also specify the security level for imprisonment, the experts noted that prison authorities are better placed to determine the security requirements. This approach also facilitates the review of security levels at regular intervals, which can act as an incentive for prisoners.73 However, the experts stressed the need for transparent criteria and avenues to challenge classifications, even more so in systems where the category European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), 11th General Report on the CPT’s activities covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2000, 3 September 2001, CPT/ Inf (2001) 16, para. 26 (CPT 11th General Report). 68  Rule 51 of the European Prison Rules also states explicitly that security measures applied to individual prisoners shall be the minimum necessary to achieve their secure custody. 69  Handbook on Dynamic Security, p. 5. 70  UN Bangkok Rules 40 and 41. 71  See Rule 87 on the need for steps to be taken to ensure ‘a gradual return to life in society’. 72  Andrew Coyle, A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management: Handbook for Prison Staff: Second edition, International Centre for Prison Studies, London, 2009, p. 62 (A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management). 73  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 25