Bias and discrimination Prison staff carrying out risk and needs assessments in the context of VERLT tend to be exposed to heightened pressure, as any shortcomings may have far-reaching consequences for prisoners, prison staff and the general public. Such situations may compound already existing implicit biases and stereotypes, leading to discriminatory overclassification. Transparent, individualized, evidence-based and structured assessment tools that apply to a spectrum of violent extremist ideologies, along with a support 212 structure for verification, can help to ensure a just and fair assessment. There should also be clear guidelines, policies and procedures to minimize any risk of bias. Staff should 213 be specifically trained (or certified, wherever possible) to conduct these assessments. It is recommended that the professional carrying out the risk and needs assessments should not be the same person responsible for decision-making regarding a prisoner’s classification. The right to be heard and to challenge outcomes of risk and needs assessments Initial assessment and classification reports should be entered in the prisoner filemanagement system and be accessible to prisoners, as required by the UN Nelson 214 Mandela Rules. Prisoners must be able to challenge outcomes of their assessments and classifications through agreed transparent and communicated procedures. The Council of Europe Guidelines clearly state that “offenders’ views should be recorded in relation to [the risk and needs assessment] and [they] should be given the opportunity to 215 challenge such assessments”, in line with national procedures. This opportunity has to be communicated to them in written form, in the most commonly used languages and 216 promptly upon admission. Risk and needs assessments and classification decisions based on mere suspicion or secret information prevent prisoners from challenging them. Such assessments and decisions may also prevent adequate oversight, as well as delay or impede the regular review of the proportionality of security measures and the timely 217 lifting of restrictions that are no longer necessary. The opportunity for prisoners to challenge their classification is particularly important in cases where a particular security 218 classification bars individuals from applying for early release or reduction of sentences. 212 UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 57; 213 UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, ibid., p. 55; Council of Europe, “Council of Europe Handbook”, op. cit., note 2, paras. 51-52. 214 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rule 7. See also rules 6, 8-10 on prisoner file management. 215 Council of Europe, “Guidelines for Prison and Probation Services regarding Radicalisation and Violent Extremism”, op. cit., note 56, Guideline 17; ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, para. 84. 216 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rules 53-54, 55.1; UN Bangkok Rules, op. cit., note 79, Rule 2; UN Havana Rules, op. cit., note 86, Rules 24-25; EPR, op. cit., note 123, Rule 30.1. 217 ICRC, “Radicalization in Detention – the ICRC’s Perspective”, op. cit., note 134. 218 ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 1, para. 84. 48