independently of COVID-19 and the oversight body had albeit on a case-by-case basis depending on the size, conducted a pre-inspection visit to the centre prior to security classification and complexity of any given cor- the adoption of restrictive measures. The virtual inspec- rectional centre. In the United Kingdom, some NPM tion enabled confidential interviews with staff and pris- members have been able to monitor some aspects of oners to proceed during the week scheduled for the police custody through videoconference technologies. on-site inspection, with video footage and photos sup- In Kazakhstan, the NPM branch of East Kazakhstan and plied to the inspection team in lieu of on-site observation. CSO partners held an online meeting with imprisoned This exercise showed it is possible for some inspec- people at a very early stage of the pandemic. tion work to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic, CURRENT PRACTICE – RATIONALE FOR CONTINUING OR SUSPENDING VISITS In deciding whether to continue or suspend visits to places of deprivation of liberty, NPMs have to weigh up a variety of factors. In Sweden, for example, when deciding how to conduct a visit, the NPM considers in particular: (1) the authorities’ advice to avoid unessential travel between regions (in particular from the capital region); (2) ethical and health considerations of exposing persons deprived of liberty, staff and NPM members to additional risk, in particular for at-risk groups in detention who may not be able to avoid contact with monitors; and (3) priorities and resource allocation, considering the consequences of COVID-19 for persons deprived of their liberty. B. REMOTE MONITORING kinds of information, including medical files (anonymised as necessary).31 Many NPMs have found alternative means As mentioned above, monitoring activities extend far and methods of gaining access to such information, which beyond visits to places of deprivation of liberty. This include first and second hand information.32 section covers considerations for remote monitoring relevant both to situations in which NPMs wish to com- Following the ‘do no harm’ principle, the use of electron- plement on-site visits and to those in which NPMs have ic means to collect and process information, must be decided to carry out remote activities. accompanied by additional data protection considerations. In fact, all processing of personal data, be it online One key aspect of on-site visits to places of deprivation of or off, is subject to regulations and must respect the liberty is the collection of first-hand information from per- human rights, including data subjects’ right to privacy.33 sons deprived of liberty, as well as from the relevant authorities. Access to information is a cornerstone of the NPMs’ work, and NPMs should have unrestricted access to all 31 For more information on prisoner file management and access to information of external monitors according to the Mandela Rules, see ODIHR/PRI Guidance Document on the Nelson Mandela Rules, 2018, Chapters 1 and 7. 32 The impossibility of conducting personal visits limits the monitoring experience, as monitors are unable to make use of their senses, to touch, hear, smell, exchange looks and get a sense of the life in the place of deprivation of liberty. Such limitations should be recognized when conducting remote monitoring activities. 33 See, European Union, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), EU 2016/679, April 2016. 11