ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Rule 5(1) provides a way for prison officials to test whether any form of treatment that differs from ‘life at liberty’ is legitimate and necessary, and to assess its impact on a prisoner’s selfdetermination and human dignity. It directs prison officials to think positively about ways to minimise the difference between prison life and life at liberty. The Essex Group noted that those in the community/outside world and those in prisons have a fundamental right to human dignity. This fundamental right underpins all other human rights such as the right to an adequate standard of living, adequate healthcare, a right to education, a right to family life and a right to work. They noted that where the standards of living and opportunities in the community are low, this does not remove the prison administration’s obligation to ensure that prisoners are able to exercise these rights.12 Rather, it must ensure that specific opportunities are available for work, family life, education and communication with the outside world.13 This aligns with the European Prison Rules that provide that ‘life in prison shall approximate as far as possible the positive aspects of life in the community’.14 It also connects to the objective of rehabilitation in preparing prisoners to undertake socially responsible roles on release. Safety and Security Rule 1 provides that the ‘safety and security of prisoners, staff, service providers and visitors shall be ensured at all times’. Personal safety is the bedrock of dignity. The Essex Group recalled that states have to ensure that prisoners, staff, service providers and visitors are safe and secure. They noted that safety and security should not be interpreted solely as protection from violence but also from threats, exploitation, abuse, theft, humiliation or any other form of victimization (whether by staff or a fellow prisoner).15 As noted in the second paper of the Essex Group16, it also requires safety and security of infrastructure from ‘the condition of the prison estate (e.g. dilapidated buildings), the risks arising from prisoners’ belongings, fire hazards (e.g. smoking or use of unauthorised electrical equipment such as cooking stoves and non-fire resistant/proof mattresses) as well as procedures and evacuation policies in case of fire17 or natural disaster’18. These obligations are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 6. The Essex Group noted the relationship between the safety and security clause in Rule 1 and the requirement to ensure the human dignity of prisoners. In this respect, they suggested that when prisons are being refurbished or new prisons built, the human dignity, safety and security of prisoners should be taken into account19 including ensuring that they comply with the requirements of the Nelson Mandela Rules on accommodation.20 For example, what might have been acceptable at the time older prisons (such as in the 19th Century) were built may not be appropriate today. UN Service for Project Services, Technical Guidance for Prison Planning: Technical and Operational Considerations Based on the Nelson Mandela Rules (2016) at 153 (making this point in relation to the right to health). (UNOPS, Technical Guidance for Prison Planning) 12  UNOPS, Technical Guidance for Prison Planning, chapter two on prison facilities. 13  Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules, 11 January 2006, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/43f3134810.html, Rule 5 (European Prison Rules) 14  This is discussed in greater detail in the Second Report of the Essex Group of Experts, at paras 5 – 27. 15  Second Report of the Essex Group of Experts, at para. 24. 16  See the Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Persons Deprived of their Liberty in Honduras, OAS (18 March 2013), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.147, available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/docs/pdf/ honduras-ppl-2013eng.pdf 17  For example, a report published by the American Civil Liberties Union documents the lack of emergency planning at the Orleans Parish Prison which during Hurricane Katrina resulted in thousands of individuals being trapped. See American Civil Liberties Union, Abandoned and abused (August 2006) available at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/ abandoned-and-abused . 18  UNOPS, Technical Guidance for Prison Planning, at 16, 30, 32, 44 – 45, 73, 86, 229, 230, 235 19  See, for example, Rules 12 – 17. 20  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 10