ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The Essex Group noted that searches should be conducted in a designated search room in a prison facility where a prisoner can be searched with dignity away from the sight of other prisoners.34 They pointed out that international standards and norms require that strip-searches must never be conducted within a group and that prisoners must never be completely naked.35 Similarly, the Essex Group noted that cell searches must respect prisoners’ property, especially that with legal, sentimental, religious or similar value. They noted that the laws and regulations on searches should be clearly specified and that a system and procedures for searches should be in place.36 Rule 60 of the Nelson Mandela Rules provides that ‘search procedures for visitors must not be degrading and be governed by principles at least as protective’ as for prisoners. Where searches are considered absolutely necessary, the Essex Group recalled that the least intrusive means should be used and that searches should be intelligence-led rather than based on profiling or presumptions.37 They also noted that it is particularly important for prison officials to be clear that the easiest or most convenient way in which to carry out a search does not establish necessity. Avoidance of Normalisation or Conditioning to Operating in Ways that Offend Human Dignity The Essex Group raised the importance of maintaining sensitivity and awareness of the concepts of proportionality and necessity in practice. They noted that there is a risk that prison officials become normalised to certain ways of operating. This could mean that they carry out searches more frequently or in circumstances that are not proportionate or necessary but that over time become seen as acceptable or the ‘way things are done’ internally. The Essex Group emphasized the importance of regularly re-examining the rationale and justification for searches to ensure that they are not conducted on a routine basis, but rather their necessity and proportionality assessed on a case-to-case basis. For example, repeated body searches during periods when prisoners are not in touch with others outside their cell are not necessary or proportionate. The frequency of cell searches should also be examined to ensure that they are necessary and proportionate rather than simply the way the prison has always worked. Recording of Searches The Essex Group pointed to the rationale underlying the recording of the use of searches within Rule 51. They noted that Rule 51 is clear on the dual purpose of recording the use of searches as first, for accountability and second, to prevent the elimination of the use of searches to harass, humiliate or intimidate prisoners as set out in Rule 51.38 UNOPS, Technical Guidance for Prison Planning, at 115. 34  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 29 September to 9 October 2015, CPT/Inf (2016) 17 (5 July 2016) at para 79 (CPT Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina); CPT, Report to the Czech Government on the Visit to the Czech Republic carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture from 1 to 10 April 2014, CPT/Inf (2015) 18 (31 March 2015) at para. 86. 35  See, Rule 54(1) of the European Prison Rules, Rule XXI of the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas. 36  CPT Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, at para 79. 37  See also, Rule 54.4 of the European Prison Rules. 38  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 15