Risk and needs assessments Examples of related issues, which detention monitors observed in practice and human rights institutions highlighted, include the following: Automatic placement in stricter prison regimes without individualized risk and needs assessment Practice example 1: In one country, prisoners suspected and convicted of terrorism offences are automatically placed in “extensively secured” “terrorist wings” due to concerns that they may radicalize or recruit other prisoners for terrorist activities. There are reportedly neither individualized risk and needs assessments before the initial placement in the terrorist wing, nor regular reviews to decide whether such placement was or remained 201 necessary and proportionate to the risks posed by individual detainees. Reportedly, exceptions to this automatic placement are very limited, and the right to appeal against 202 the initial placement is not effective in practice. The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) have expressed concerns regarding the absence of individual risk and needs assessments and the automatic placement of detainees in those wings. The CPT reiterated its recommendation, adding that there should be “a regular review of the placement in which the person concerned is involved (notification, 203 right to be heard)”. The CAT also issued recommendations regarding the nature of the individual assessment, including that it be “…based on specific and objective criteria, including a person’s actual behaviour, and supported by credible, concrete, complete and up-to-date information, and determine whether placement in a high security facility 204 is necessary and proportionate.” Practice example 2: In another country, the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) observed that prisoners could be allocated to particular facilities based on the gravity of the crime they were convicted of and previous criminal offences and sentences, 205 with no individualized risk and needs assessment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism highlighted concerns that individuals accused or convicted of terrorism were subject to prison regimes with exceptional rules and faced reduced privileges. Concerns were also raised about the apparent use of religious beliefs and practices as 201 After the initial placement in the terrorist wing (Terroristenafdeling), however, there is an assessment, including for the determination of security measures (referred to as differentiation). While a recent report of the Inspectorate under the Ministry of Justice and Security maintained that the probability of unnecessarily applying stringent security measures had been reduced as a result of differentiation, it also found a number of practical challenges with regards to risk assessments, based on the VERA-2R assessment tool, during the admission procedure in the first six weeks of detention. See: Inspectorate of Justice and Security, “The Terrorist Detention Units in the Netherlands”, 2019. P. 31 and 26-29. 202 Amnesty International and Open Society Justice Initiative, “Inhuman and Unnecessary Human Rights Violations in Dutch High-Security Prisons in the Context of Counter Terrorism”, op. cit., note 106, p. 7; and UN Committee against Torture, “Concluding Observations on the Seventh Periodic Report of the Netherlands”, CAT/C/NLD/CO/7, 18 December 2018, para. 28. 203 Council of Europe, CPT report on the 2016 visit to the Netherlands, (CPT/Inf (2017) 1, para. 50). 204 UN Committee against Torture, “Concluding Observations on the Seventh Periodic Report of the Netherlands” op. cit., note 202, para. 29b. 205 SPT, Visit to Kazakhstan undertaken from 20 to 29 September 2016: observations and recommendations addressed to the State party, CAT/OP/KAZ/1, 7 February 2019, para. 94. 46