law. This prohibition derives from the general prohibition of torture and other forms of illtreatment. Less invasive means of restraint may, nevertheless, be humiliating and painful. 285 When used to deliberately inflict pain or suffering, their application constitutes torture. 284 Importantly, any decision to resort to instruments of restraint should be based on an 286 individual assessment of the risk, and not applied in a routine manner. The nature of the offence an individual is accused or convicted of, does not, in itself, justify resorting to such means. The use of chains and padlocks, rather than handcuffs, to restrain individuals has been observed in some high-security units in the OSCE region, despite the prohibition 287 of this practice. Similarly, detainees considered “vulnerable” to VERLT should not be subjected to more severe means of restraint than others on the sole basis of presumptions about their dangerousness due to this perceived vulnerability. Disproportionate and unjustified humiliation and pain caused by these instruments of restraint may also be exploited by leaders and recruiters of violent extremist groups in prisons. Any time a restraint is used, the process must be properly supervised and recorded in the prisoners file-management system. The records should also include details of any injuries sustained by the prisoner, details of when the restraint was no longer needed, and any complaints 288 that may have been raised by the prisoner concerning the use of the restraint. Individual risk assessment should similarly guide any decision to use instruments of restraint during a transfer. The necessity of transferring a detainee should be carefully evaluated against the individual risk that they may pose in terms, for example, of recruitment and 289 group forming. Transfers may disrupt efforts of reintegration and disengagement from 290 VERLT or, in some cases, of establishing trust with prison staff. In a number of countries, prisoners convicted of violent extremism-related offences are frequently transferred on security grounds, or to accommodate them in new facilities that are established for “highrisk” prisoners or dedicated for prisoners accused or convicted of terrorism or violent extremism-related offences, or for those deemed “at risk of VERLT” (including within the 291 same prison). While transfers are sometimes necessary and beneficial for the prisoner, there are cases where transfers are problematic, for instance, when resulting in detainees’ limited access 292 to family or contacts they have established in a specific facility. UN Nelson Mandela Rule 59 explicitly stipulates that prisoners shall be allocated, to the extent possible, to prisons close to their homes or their places of social rehabilitation. The SPT has noted 284 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rules 47-49. 285 ODIHR & PRI, Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 10, Chapter 3, para. 5. 286 PRI and the APT, “Balancing Security and Dignity in Prisons: A Framework for Preventive Monitoring”, op. cit., note 135, p. 11. 287 CPT, “Report to the Czech Government on the Visit to the Czech Republic Carried Out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 2 to 11 October 2018”, CPT/Inf (2019) 23, para. 72. 288 UN Nelson Mandela Rules, op. cit., note 13, Rule 8 (c&d). 289 Council of Europe, “Council of Europe Handbook”, op. cit., note 2, para. 129. 290 UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 53. 291 Council of Europe, “Council of Europe Handbook”, op. cit., note 2, p. 36. UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 53. 292 See for example, Amnesty International, “Russian Federation: Prison transportation in Russia – Travelling into the Unknown”, A25 October 2017, pp. 13-14. 63