ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES of communication are not only available to those prisoners who can afford to pay for them. The Essex Group noted other examples of discrimination, such as the practice documented by the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), where ‘in the case of female prisoners, long visits by a civil partner were prohibited and prices for use of facilities for intimate visits were prohibitive and higher than in the male colonies’.151 Indigent prisoners should be provided with appropriate support (including writing material, envelopes, postage stamps, telephone cards) so that they are not de facto deprived of communication with family and friends. Visits by family and friends The Essex group emphasised that for visits at regular intervals it is essential that prisoners are not allocated or transferred to prisons far from their homes. If families can only visit infrequently due to the location of the prison, prisoners could be permitted to accumulate visiting entitlements and have longer visits or several over a couple of days. The European Committee to Prevent Torture has emphasised the ‘need for some flexibility as regards the application of rules on visits and telephone contacts’ for families who live far away.152 For instance, the SPT has documented good practice of a 3-day visit with overnight stays, but has cautioned against a discriminatory effect due to high costs of overnight visits in the given context.153 The Essex group noted that virtual visits via video conferencing may be arranged in case of prisoners whose families live far away, and that this is particularly important for foreign national prisoners. However, the participants also stressed that video-conferencing and other forms of remote communication are not an adequate substitute for in-person visits. The experts held that in light of the rationale of visits the term ‘family’ should not be interpreted too narrowly and that in many countries the concept of family is broader than the next of kin or immediate family members. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recognises that the term ‘family’ refers to a variety of arrangements that can provide for young children’s care, nurturance and development, including the nuclear family, the extended family, and other traditional and modern arrangements, provided these are consistent with children’s rights and best interests.154 Similarly, regional bodies have adopted broad definitions. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the right to private and family life as not confined to legally acknowledged relationships.155 The Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas also include ‘other Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to Ukraine, 16 March 2016, CAT/OP/UKR/1, para. 140 (SPT Report on visit to Ukraine). 151  CPT 2nd General Report, [CPT/Inf (92) 3], para. 51. 152  SPT Report on visit to Ukraine, CAT/OP/UKR/1, para. 121. 153  UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 7 (2005): Implementing child rights in early childhood, 20 September 2006, CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1, para. 15. 154  ’The notion of the “family” in Article 8 is not confined solely to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto “family” ties, where the parties are living together outside marriage’. (Keegan v. Ireland, Judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp. 17-18, para. 44); see also Kroon and others v. The Netherlands (Application no. 18535/91), Judgment of 27 October 1994, para. 30; Mikulić v. Croatia (Application no. 53176/99), Judgment of 7 February 2002, para. 51. 155  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 45