“vulnerable” to VERLT or violently radicalized in prison may also face restrictions to their 165 right to seek and impart information, which is part of the freedom of expression. The expression of “radical” or “extreme” views without also supporting, inciting or committing violence should not, on its own, be considered as an indicator of VERLT and used to justify restrictions on prisoners’ rights. Freedom of opinion and expression protects all forms of ideas, information and opinions, including those that “offend, shock or disturb the state 166 or any part of the population”. While it may be legitimate for the detaining authorities to challenge ideas they disagree with, they should not seek to prevent such ideas from being 167 expressed and discussed. Prison authorities would have to demonstrate the specific, individual and precise nature of the threat to good order or national security, as well as the necessity and proportionality of the action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and 168 immediate connection between the expression and the threat. Moreover, restrictions to 169 freedom of expression must not jeopardize the essence of the right. Risk and needs assessments tools As set out in the previous section, the classification of prisoners and subsequent decisions regarding the placement and detention regime must not be based on the sole observation of a limited set of indicators. This is where regular targeted, individualized 170 and gender-sensitive risk and needs assessments play a key role. While risk and needs assessments should be based on indicators, in order to ensure systematized and structured observation, tools that use the aforementioned indicators have inherent limitations. Crucially, these tools should be based, both on dynamic factors, i.e., those that are currently present and can be influenced, and on static factors, i.e., those based 171 on the individual’s history and that are fixed and cannot be changed. Individual assessments should be carried out by trained professionals “to avoid classifications being influenced by stereotyping, profiling and personal assumptions about 172 a prisoner.” Assessing risk requires collecting and validating information from various 165 ICCPR, op. cit., note 85, Article 19. 166 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Handyside v. UK, Application No. 5493/72, 7 December 1976. 167 UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism, “Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism”, op. cit., note 23, para. 38. See also, Preventing Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism and Radicalization that Lead to Terrorism: A Community-Policing Approach, op. cit., note 22, pp. 42-43. 168 UN CCPR, “General Comment No. 34 – Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression”, CCPR/C/ GC/34, 12 September 2011, para. 35. 169 UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism, “Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism”, op. cit., note 23, para. 38. 170 For an overview of classification, risk and needs assessment in accordance with the UN Nelson Mandela Rules, see: ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 1, paras. 64-87. 171 UNODC, Handbook on the Classification of Prisoners, op. cit., note 141: This resulted in the development of tools that, while retaining static criminal and personal history items linked to risk, also incorporated dynamic or changeable predictors that were not only sensitive to alterations in an offender’s circumstances (to assist in monitoring change), but also provided prison staff with information regarding the needs of the prisoner that should be targeted through interventions. These are referred to as “risk-need” or “thirdgeneration” instruments in research literature. For more information on risk and needs assessments and the influence of the risk-need-responsivity model of prisoner assessment and rehabilitation, see p. 38. 172 ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 1, para. 81. 40