ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES examination in order to substantiate their complaint.475 Procedures also need to address the risk of complaints being tampered with or not being transmitted to the complaints mechanism.476 The experts noted particular disincentives for women in custody, such as the fear of stigma and shame associated with sexual abuse and rape and of investigations involving humiliating physical examinations. Complaints mechanisms should therefore account for the specific risks of retaliation against women prisoners, and implement Bangkok Rules 7 and 25. Experts cautioned against transfer of a woman to another prison, as a means of protection against reprisals, as given the small number of women’s prisons in most countries this would ‘almost certainly mean that she would be taken further away from her home’.477 In order to investigate any alleged wrong-doing complaint mechanisms need to be equipped with their own investigative capacity, rather than having to rely on the enquiries of other bodies, in particular the one alleged of misconduct.478 The experts identified elements of a functioning complaints system: differentiation between requests and complaints (to expedite day-to-day and less serious complaints/requests); provision of a complaints form that is easy to read/understand and freely available to prisoners (without the requirement to request a form); provision of a locked and discrete complaints box at various locations in the prison facility’; a step-by-step response system (e.g. prison officer at the wing, management level, governor, Ombudsperson); and accessible ‘easy-to-read’ replies. They emphasised that an effective complaints mechanism is one that provides recourse within reasonable time if the complaint is found to be well founded, and that it must be linked with accountability of officers who are found to have violated laws or regulations. As the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has noted, it is important to ‘integrate a provision obliging the personnel to guarantee the timely enforcement of any decision’.479 Protection against reprisals The Rules place an obligation on prison authorities to take effective measures to protect complainants against ‘any risk of retaliation, intimidation or other negative consequence as a result of having submitted a request or complaint’ (Rule 57(2)). As the Rule suggests, measures need to be taken to protect the prisoner – as well as persons who are entitled to issue complaints (legal representative, family members, according to Rule 56 (4)).480 The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has emphasised that ‘[m]easures in this regard include the transfer of the complainant or the implicated personnel to a different detention facility or the suspension from duty of the personnel’.481 The UN Committee against Torture recommended ‘[p] rotective measures including relocation, on site security, hotlines, and judicial orders of protection to prevent violence and harassment against complainants, witnesses, or close associates of such parties’.482 Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295. 475  See, for example, SPT Report on visit to Ukraine, CAT/OP/UKR/1, para. 53. 476  Penal Reform International and Thailand Institute of Justice, Guidance Document: United Nations Rules on the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (The Bangkok Rules), London and Bangkok, October 2013, p. 70. 477  SPT Report on visit to Brazil, CAT/OP/BRA/1, para. 54. 478  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013, A/68/295, para. 77 479  The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also emphasised that detainees who take recourse in appeals, complaints and petitions must not be punished for filing them (IACHR Report on Persons Deprived of Liberty). 480  Special Rapporteur on Torture report 2013. A/68/295, para. 77. 481  CAT SMR revision observations, CAT/C/51/4, para. 55. 482  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 118