ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES prisoners and searches of visitors are different as visitors are not in prison following a conviction for a criminal offence. Therefore, searches can never be enforced upon visitors. However, during the negotiations, states pointed out that the prison administration also needs to ensure safety and security in prisons including preventing contraband being brought into the prison. Yet, even on this rationale, a search may not be required or be necessary or proportionate if the visit is not open thus removing the risk of any contraband being transferred. The Essex Group noted that consent must be interpreted as informed consent and the procedures used to conduct searches announced and explained before entering the facility. They also pointed out that when visitors are aware that they may be searched, it gives them the opportunity to explain to the prisoner that the risk of the search meant that they had to dispose of any contraband which they are sometimes put under pressure to bring in. The Essex Group emphasised that there should not be a blanket method of carrying out body searches. Rather, it should be intelligence-led, that is, used only when there is evidence that it is required or evidence that a body search is necessary and proportionate to the identified risks. Further, the experts suggested that search procedures for visitors should ‘recognise that visitors are not themselves prisoners and that the obligation to protect the security of the prison has to be balanced against the right of visitors to their personal privacy’.50 The Essex Group also pointed out that children should not be subject to body searches as it will never be in their best interests. However, if there is a suspicion that a child may have been pressured into bringing contraband to the prison, alternatives may be possible, such as a noncontact visit. This would still mean that the child could visit his or her family member. Prisoners with Disabilities Two key rules deal with the rights of prisoners with disabilities. These are Rule 5(2) and Rule 109. Rule 5(2) requires prison administrations to make all ‘reasonable accommodation and adjustments to ensure that prisoners with physical, mental or other disabilities have full and effective access to prison life on an equitable basis’. This is because a disability is as much a reflection of the environment, structure and circumstances in which people live that disadvantage them as an individual trait. Therefore, the idea underpinning reasonable accommodation and adjustment is that the environment and structure should accommodate the trait. If the structure inherently imposes a detrimental experience on any disability, the disadvantage for the person amounts to arbitrary deprivation or punishment. For example, if showers are equipped with a sill that prevents access to wheelchair users, the disability is disadvantaged by a structure, which prison officials will be required to correct. Rule 5(2) should be read together with Rule 4(2) which requires that all programmes, services and assistance are ‘delivered in line with the individual treatment needs of prisoners’ and Rule 109 on the detention and treatment of prisoners with mental health disabilities and/or health conditions. The first step in making reasonable accommodation or adjustments is to identify what the individual needs of the prisoner are. The Essex Group underscored that it is vital that the prisoner has input into what his or her needs are.51 The prison is then required to make the reasonable Coyle A, A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management (second edition, 2009), available at: http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/handbook_2nd_ed_eng_8.pdf, at p.64 ; see Rule 54.9 of the European Prison Rules. 50  Article 3(a) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 51  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 18