RISK FACTORS DERIVING FROM AN OVEREMPHASIS ON SECURITY only be applied in exceptional circumstances, when no other options are available, in order to prevent the detainee from inflicting injuries to others or themselves, or to prevent escape during a transfer, for the shortest possible period of time. Where the use of an instrument of restraint is authorised by law, they should be imposed only when no lesser form of control would be effective in addressing the risks posed by unrestricted movement, and the least intrusive method that is necessary and reasonably available should be used.48 following an individual risk assessment. In this regard, routinely handcuffing detainees within a prison for all out-of-cell movement is not justified by security considerations. Even where the use of restraints is necessary and proportionate in a given situation, the manner in which they are employed may give reason for concern, for example if handcuffs are purposely tightened in a way that harms the detainee. Restraints must not cause humiliation or degradation, and must be ended/removed as soon as the risk ceases. They should not be applied as a disciplinary measure,49 and are usually an inadequate means of preventing suicide or self-harm among prisoners. Measures involving regular monitoring of such prisoners and provision of mental healthcare as well as meaningful activities are preferable. The revised Standard Minimum Rules encourage control techniques that obviate the need for the imposition of instruments of restraint or reduce their intrusiveness.50 ‘The delegation also heard several accounts of use of handcuffs in a particularly humiliating and painful way, for purposes of punishment and control. The delegation is also concerned about the alleged use of restraints as a security measure to respond to incidents. The SPT emphasizes that discipline and order should be maintained with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and wellordered prison life. Instruments of restraints, such as handcuffs, should never be applied as punishment. The SPT recommends that the practice of using handcuffs as a means of punishment be eliminated immediately.’ (Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to the Maldives, CAT/ OP/MDV/1, 26 February 2009, para. 207) Reduction in the use of shackles in Thailand In May 2013 the government of Thailand announced that they had put an end to the practice of shackling all death row inmates at the highest security prison in Thailand, Bangkwang prison in Nontaburi Province. Death row prisoners had to wear leg irons weighing up to 5 kilograms for 24 hours a day, including for sleeping, bathing, eating or praying. On the day the announcement about unshackling was made, a detainee of the prison said ‘Prisoners are not animals. They should not be chained because of their wrongdoing. They already were punished by being in jail’. In other prisons in Thailand, detainees can be shackled on reception or as a punishment. The government said there are plans to remove all shackles in all prisons all over Thailand.51 Under international law, the use of restraints for juveniles is limited strictly to exceptional, specified cases.52 Furthermore, the use of instruments of restraint is prohibited for women during labour, during birth and immediately after birth.53 Clear provisions should be in place, prescribing the above parameters, including strictly defined cases of use. The application of instruments of restraint should be subject to authorisation by the director and be recorded. Means of restraint should not be used in a routine manner, but employed only on a case-by-case basis Use of handcuffs in Maldives Monitoring bodies should assess whether and which regulations and procedures are in place, setting out the circumstances of the use of instruments of restraint and specific safeguards against abuse. They should establish whether instruments prohibited under international law are explicitly forbidden, and whether the use of restraints is applied consistently with the principles of necessity and proportionality, rather than on a routine basis. Monitoring bodies should also enquire whether training, before entering duty and in-service training, covers the use of instruments of restraint, but also control techniques that enable them to avoid their use, including preventive and defusing techniques, such as negotiation and mediation.54 4. Body searches Searches of various kinds are a necessary and legitimate means of preventing prisoners from having access to dangerous or prohibited items or substances, which may constitute a threat to the safety and health of staff, other prisoners and visitors. However, when conducted routinely, in a disproportionate, humiliating or discriminatory way, searches infringe upon the dignity of detainees and can amount to inhuman or 48. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 47 Rules 47(2) and 48; Principle 9, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. 49. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 43(2). 50. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 49. 51. See ‘The story of a lese majeste prisoner’, Bangkok Post, 21 July 2013, http://m.bangkokpost.com/opinion/360858 and ‘Thailand starts phasing out shackles in prisons’, BBC News, 16 May 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22555030 <accessed 23 September 2013> 52. Article 64, United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. 53. Rule 24, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), see also Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 48(2). 54. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rules 49 and 76. Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring | 11