Individualized and evidence-based risk and needs assessments are of particular importance in the case of pre-trial detainees. Pre-trial detainees have particular needs, and the risks they may present are different. Studies on pre-trial detention show, for 195 example, a higher risk of suicide and self-harm. Pre-trial detainees should not be classified on the sole basis of the charges against them. If this happens for individuals accused of terrorist offences, it may lead to their automatic placement in the highest security settings and, as a result, in practice, to their placement in facilities for sentenced detainees. This raises profound concerns as to its compliance with international human rights law and OSCE commitments in relation to the right to a fair trial. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental and non-derogable right. Classification and placement during pre-trial detention (in high security settings and/or with sentenced detainees) may 196 influence the rendering of a judgement by presupposing a level of guilt. Furthermore, the more restrictive regimes often found in high-security settings may inhibit full access to legal representation. Arbitrary assessments and over-classification As for the general classification of prisoners, in the VERLT context allocation and classification of prisoners should be based on individual risk and needs assessments and must not be arbitrary or discriminatory. Such arbitrary or discriminatory practices include the use of blanket rules that assign prisoners security categories and prisons/units on the sole basis of the nature of their offences or charges, the length of their sentence, their nationality, ethnicity, religion or travel history (e.g., having travelled or planned to travel to 197 a conflict zone). Weak and arbitrary risk and needs assessments and classification are problematic, as they fail to identify the most suitable accommodation and those prisoners for whom placement in high-security facilities is truly justified, and they also compromise the 198 implementation of sentencing plans, reintegration and post-sentencing measures. This, in turn, may undermine efforts to prevent VERLT and heighten the risk of ill-treatment and torture. Classification and categorization should, instead, be based on the principle that all prisoners are held in the least restrictive settings necessary to address the risks they 199 pose and their needs. As for any other group of prisoners, (suspected) violent extremist prisoners or prisoners deemed “at risk” of VERLT should be able to evolve towards less restrictive security regimes, based on the dynamic and regular review of risk and needs assessments that evaluate the changes and progress made. They should not be continuously kept in high195 ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 1, para. 87 196 OSCE commitments and international standards on the presumption of innocence, op. cit., note 115. UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rule 111.2. 197 ICRC, “Radicalization in Detention – the ICRC’s Perspective”, op. cit., note 134, p. 3. 198 For more on sentence planning, see ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 1, para. 78. 199 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rule 3. This is a principle of good prison management: “The essence of imprisonment is deprivation of liberty and the task of the prison authorities is to ensure that this is implemented in a manner which is no more restrictive than is necessary. It is not the function of the prison authority to impose additional deprivations on those in its care”, Andrew Coyle, A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management, (London: International Centre for Prison Studies, 2009), p. 11. 44