Use of indicators to identify prisoners “vulnerable” to VERLT The line between individuals considered as violent extremists, due to the offence they were convicted of or charges against them, and those considered as radicalizing or “vulnerable” to VERLT can be blurred. Some prisoners may have been convicted of terrorist crimes for an offence that did not involve the direct use of violence (for example, downloading materials produced by a terrorist group), while others may have been convicted for non-terrorist-related crimes because the motivation was not relevant or 150 was taken into account only at sentencing. “Vulnerability” to VERLT is a concept difficult to define, and detecting potential risks of radicalization leading to terrorism or violence is a challenging task. In an attempt to more accurately and consistently classify individuals, prison systems often rely on “indicators” to identify potential vulnerability to VERLT. The Council of Europe and UNODC handbooks name a number of such indicators. While emphasizing the limits inherent in any system using such indicators, the UNODC, for instance, refers to three main factors: (a) expressed opinions; (b) material (possession of violent extremist literature, symbols and imagery, or of literature on weapons, explosives or on military training, skills and techniques, or attempts to access, become a member of, or contribute to violent extremist websites and/or chat rooms); and (c) behaviour and behavioural changes (loss of interest and withdrawal from contact with the outside world, association with violent extremist groups or individuals in prisons, changing of the style of dress or personal appearance, such as tattoos to accord with the group, day-to-day behaviour becoming 151 increasingly centred around a violent extremist ideology, or attempts to recruit others). The Council of Europe refers to indicators ranging from “an increasing commitment to the ideology or narrative that supports the use of violence”, “an increasing willingness to use violence to achieve ideological goals” and “an increasing engagement with physical or virtual (cyber) networks supporting the use of violence”, to “changes in attitudes and values” and “changes in personal behaviour patterns, interest in or development of new 152 skills and capacities that enable the use of violent action”. There is a definite need to equip prison staff with tools to identify and report concerns about potential risks of VERLT. Being in everyday contact with prisoners, such staff are not only well-placed to detect such risks but are under significant pressure to do so. However, as the reliance on early signs or indicators of VERLT as a basis for risk and needs assessments appears to be a growing trend across the OSCE area, authorities should be cautioned against the use of simplistic models and be aware of their potential human rights implications. A prisoner who meets one or more indicators may signal that they are being radicalized to violence to some extent, but this does not yet indicate that 153 they will engage in violent extremism. Prison staff should be adequately trained, for example, to distinguish between the practice of ones’ religion, political stance, culture, 150 EU Radicalisation Network (EU-REN), “Dealing with Radicalization in a Prison and Probation Context: Practitioners Working Paper”, 21 March 2016, p. 4. 151 UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 116-117. 152 Council of Europe, “Council of Europe Handbook”, op. cit., note 2, para. 26-29. 153 UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 117. 37