5. CONTACT WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD Confidentiality of communication 112 Telephones for making calls to legal representatives must be located in areas where privacy and confidentiality can be assured. Prisoners must also be able to write to their representatives without their correspondence being censored or surveilled, including by email or other electronic forms of communication. 113 Facilities for prisoners to meet with their legal representatives need to be designed in such a way that they enable prisoners to communicate in full privacy and confidentiality with their legal representative, whilst allowing staff to monitor them if necessary for security purposes, such as ensuring the safety of the lawyer. In most cases, the presence of a prison officer will not be necessary. Doors and windows of meeting rooms for lawyers must close securely and the room must be located or designed so that it is sound-proof. 114 Erecting a glass sound-proof panel between the lawyer’s room and observers can allow consultations to take place in sight, but not within hearing of prison staff. Any observation should be monitored to ensure that prison staff do not engage in any visually threatening or intimidating behaviour. 115 Prisoners should be provided with writing materials for such meetings and other legal matters, to enable them to give their lawyers confidential instructions and to take notes of the meeting if they wish to do so.327 Chapter 2, paragraphs 69–72 of this guidance document deals with searches of legal representatives. Means of communication While phone calls and other remote forms of communication are important means of communicating with legal representatives they must never be considered a substitute for inperson meetings unless the use of such communication tools has been specifically requested by a prisoner. Direct contact with a lawyer or legal aid provider is essential for establishing client-lawyer trust and for effective representation. 117 The number and location of private rooms needed for meetings with legal representatives should be considered in the earliest stages of planning the construction of a prison and be based on the number of prisoners that will be held there. The percentage of pre-trial prisoners held within the facility is a relevant consideration in this planning stage because they will likely need to consult on a more regular basis with their legal representatives than those who have already been sentenced. The location of telephones to enable confidential conversations should also be considered at the planning stage. 118 The location of meeting rooms and telephones for contacting legal representatives should also take into account the needs of prisoners with physical disabilities. 119 There must be no limits on the numbers of visits or phone calls a prisoner can have with their legal representatives, or on the amount of time they need to consult with them. There should also be no unreasonable delays in allowing communication to take place between a prisoner and her or his legal representative. 5 116 Other safeguards 120 Prison authorities must allow lawyers and legal aid providers to carry out their work without intimidation, threats, harassment or hindrance. 121 Preferential access applies to all legal advisors and legal aid providers, including where the legal aid provider is an NGO staff member, as defined in the UN Legal Aid Principles and Guidelines. 327. Ibid, Rule 120 (2): states that “an untried prisoner shall, upon request, be provided with writing material for the preparation of documents related to his or her defence, including confidential instructions for his or her legal adviser or legal aid provider”. Rule 61, in requiring “adequate opportunity, time and facilities” also makes clear that such materials must be made available to all prisoners for any legal matter; the Commentary on European Prison Rules, Council of Europe, op. cit., note 74: also states that “prisoners should be provided with writing materials to make notes and with postage for letters to lawyers when they are unable to afford it themselves” (Commentary on Rule 23, with reference to ECtHR, Cotlet v Romania, 3 June 2003, appl. Nr. 38565/97). Guidance document on the Nelson Mandela Rules 135