RISK FACTORS AND SITUATIONS and should neither lead to further stigmatisation, nor to a limitation on accessing services and education. In the UK, for example, a gay prisoner was granted Vulnerable Prisoner (‘VP’) status due to prior abuse by other inmates and transferred to the vulnerable prisoner unit. However by becoming a ‘VP’, he lost his job in the prison education block, was allowed only one morning session of basic education each day, and spent the rest of his time in his cell.61 Solitary confinement, as a protective measure, has been used in Turkey for LGBTI persons, effectively denying them the opportunity to join in activities run at the prison.62 The European Court of Human Rights63 found this practice to be in violation of Article 364 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as of Article 14 (non-discrimination). The applicant, a Turkish citizen who had been placed in solitary confinement as a protective measure, had asked the prison authorities to be separated from the inmates he was originally sharing the cell with because he had been intimidated and bullied for being gay. He was placed in an individual cell which measured seven metres squared for more than 13 months, with no access to open-air exercise and no contact with other inmates. This landmark ruling emphasises the problematic practice of placing LGBTI detainees in solitary confinement as the easiest way to protect them. Equally, transgender detainees undergoing sex reassignment treatment should not be automatically placed in solitary confinement. As stated by the French Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty: “ Throughout the medical treatment, the penitentiary administration should ensure that the physical integrity of the person is protected, which should not mean that the person is necessarily placed in solitary confinement, and that the person should not be subjected to pressure or bullying of any kind and of any person in relation to his/her project [NB: of sex reassignment]. As soon as the person concerned asks for placement in individual cell, this should be granted. 65 ” Monitoring bodies should assess whether there is a balance between measures to protect persons in situations of vulnerability in detention and the conditions and modalities of such separation/isolation of detainees from others. Of particular importance is to assess whether the respective detainees consented to be under such a ‘protective’ regime and that it is not used as a way to stigmatise or punish targeted individuals. Where isolation from other detainees is used, prison regimes must ensure that prisoners have meaningful social contact with others, for example by raising the level of staff-prisoner contact, allowing access to social activities with other prisoners and more visits, arranging in-depth talks with psychologists, psychiatrists, chaplains, and volunteers from the local community, maintaining and developing relationships with family and friends, and by providing meaningful in cell and out of cell activities.’66 ‘States shall […] [e]nsure, to the extent possible, that all prisoners participate in decisions regarding the place of detention appropriate to their sexual orientation and gender identity; put protective measures in place for all prisoners vulnerable to violence or abuse on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression; and ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that such protective measures involve no greater restriction of their rights than is experienced by the general prison population.’ Yogyakarta Principle 9 (C-D), The right to treatment with humanity while in detention 8. Discrimination in accessing services and benefits The provision of healthcare and meaningful activities derives from human rights safeguards, and LGBTI detainees must have access on an equal basis with other detainees. Where education, vocational trainings, workshops, sport and conjugal visits are available, detention authorities may limit detainees’ access based on security considerations, or as a consequence of (necessary and proportionate) disciplinary measures. However, such activities must never be suspended or limited on a discriminatory basis. Sexual minorities are often excluded from participating in such activities, either as a matter of discrimination or as a consequence of separating them from other detainees for protection. Monitoring bodies should carefully assess whether LGBTI detainees are denied access to any service or activities on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. 61. ‘Homophobia is still rife in UK prisons’, The Guardian, 25 September 2012. Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/25/homophobia-rifeuk-prisons <accessed 7 October 2013>. 62. ‘Majority of imprisoned LGBTs kept in solitary confinement’, Hürriyet Daily News, 27 July 2013. Available at: www.hurriyetdailynews.com/majority-ofimprisoned- lgbts-kept-in-jail-solitary-confinement.aspx?pageID=238&nID=51500&NewsCatID=339 <accessed 7 October 2013>. 63. European Court of Human Rights, X v. Turkey (Application no. 24626/09), 9 October 2012. 64. ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.’ 65. Contrôleur Général des lieux de privation de liberté, Avis du 30 juin 2010 relatif à la prise en charge des personnes transsexuelles incarcérées. 66. See Rule 38(2) of the revised Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which calls on prison administrations to ‘take the necessary measures to alleviate the potential detrimental effects’ of prisoners who are, or have been separated. 12 | Penal Reform International | LGBTI persons deprived of their liberty: a framework for preventive monitoring