HOW CAN MONITORING BODIES ADDRESS THE BALANCE BETWEEN SECURITY AND DIGNITY? How can monitoring bodies address the balance between security and dignity? There is a risk that in a prison, security concerns prevail over any other considerations and infringe the human rights and dignity of the persons deprived of their liberty. In order to address this risk, monitoring bodies need to exercise their mandate in a comprehensive way, taking into account the collectivity of security measures applied and their justification in the context of the specific prison and the individual case. They should critically appraise specific practices as well as their impact collectively, on whether they are justified, necessary and proportionate, and actually result in an increase of security and safety. In their reports and recommendations, they should be ready to challenge security measures, especially when practices are systematic and applied to all detainees disregarding individual security risks they may or may not pose. Monitoring bodies may need to conduct a number of private interviews with detainees that are representational of all groups, including persons in situations of vulnerability. They should reach out to groups of prisoners who may have been subjected to excessive security measures, for example, prisoners in security or isolation cells or under solitary confinement. Informal conversations and formal interviews in private with the staff, especially staff in direct contact with detainees, are essential for understanding their security concerns. Interviews with other personnel, such as health personnel and social workers, but also with families, professional associations or trade unions of prison staff are also helpful to understanding whether security measures and policies are legitimate or arbitrary. Monitoring bodies need to cross-check the information gathered through interviews with documents and registers, including registers of incidents, use of force and medical files in order to assess whether or not security measures are lawful, necessary and proportionate to reduce the risk they claim to tackle. Monitoring bodies should enquire into possible discriminatory practices and the misinterpretation of specific needs as ‘security threats’. They should be conscious that in prison systems that overemphasise security, persons in situations of vulnerability, including children, women,133 older people, people living in poverty, members of ethnic or religious minorities, indigenous people, LGBTI people,134 migrants, and persons with psycho-social disabilities135 may be more affected and face higher risks of being exposed to abuse. For example, foreign nationals may be perceived as representing a high risk of flight and members of ethnic and religious minorities and LGBTI people may be seen as a threat to the dominant culture and therefore a hindrance to the smooth running of a prison. Monitors also have to keep in mind the security of the persons deprived of liberty they speak to, and their risk of being subjected to reprisals or sanctions for having been in contact with them.136 In this regard, monitors should respect the ‘do no harm’ principle and consider alternative ways of information gathering where available. They must also be mindful of their own security. It is ultimately the responsibility of members of the monitoring team to determine whether or not to follow the advice of the authorities on matters relating to their security. When monitors decide to conduct an interview against the advice of the authorities, they should also consider the conditions in which such interaction takes place, for example out of hearing but in sight of guards. In this regard, monitoring bodies and NPMs may want to consider adopting an internal security policy in order to be prepared to respond to security concerns during their monitoring visits. As an overemphasis on security in detention is part of a more global trend, monitoring bodies should also be mindful of the broader picture and societal trends that demand ‘more security’ in places of detention, and their impact on the management of prisons. They have a responsibility to counter false perceptions about insecurity, simplistic messages about detainees and demands for more repressive policies. In order to do this, they need to develop well-defined outreach and communication strategies targeting the media, policymakers and the general public. Finally, monitoring bodies have an important role to play in alerting decision-makers and the broader public about the immediate, as well as the more long-term consequences of some policies, in particular where ‘security measures’ in effect are counter- productive and result in an increase of violence and a deterioration of safety and order. Ultimately, the goal of a more secure society will only be achieved through a criminal justice system that is fair and just, and where the dignity of all detained persons is respected. 133. See PRI/APT, Women in detention: a guide to gender-sensitive monitoring, 2nd edition, 2015. 134. See PRI/APT, LGBTI persons deprived of their liberty: a framework for preventive monitoring, 2nd edition, 2015. 135. There is a disproportionately high rate of detainees suffering from some form of mental disorder in prisons, ranging from anxiety to suicidal thoughts. Due to scarcity of resources, staff or space, and because sometimes mental illness goes unnoticed for lack of medical attention from the outset of detention, persons suffering from severe psychosocial disabilities, such as psychosis, are often held in prisons, mixed with the general prison population. 136. Reprisals might also affect staff who have been in contact with the monitoring bodies. 20 | Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring