ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The Essex group stressed that prisoners in pre-trial detention should be allowed to receive visits and communicate with family and other persons at least in the same way as convicted prisoners, and may receive additional visits and have additional access to other forms of communication.160 Restrictions The group looked at Rule 43(3) in detail and deduced the following with regard to the prohibition/ restriction of family contact: •  The Rule differentiates between ‘disciplinary sanctions’ as compared to ‘restrictive measures’ referring to restrictions based on security grounds. •  The first sentence of Rule 43(3) refers to ‘prohibition’, whereas the second part governs ‘restrictions’. •  Accordingly, neither disciplinary sanctions nor measures based on security grounds may include the prohibition of family contact. •  Restrictions on the other hand are possible, but only ‘for a limited time period and as strictly required for the maintenance of security and order’. Moreover, it is the ‘means of family contact’ that may be restricted, not the contact itself. For example, a visit might be limited to a closed visit (behind a glass partition), but must not be denied entirely. •  The term ‘strictly required’ introduces a high bar for allowing the imposition of restrictions on family contact as well as the requirement of necessity and proportionality in such imposition. •  Should security concerns have arisen in connection with a particular visitor, this should not result in an automatic or complete ban of visits, but each case should be considered on its merits. For example, if a visitor has delivered contraband to a prisoner, it may be justified to order a closed visit next time, but it would not warrant a complete ban of all visits for the respective prisoner. In discussing Rule 58, the experts stressed that the term ‘under necessary supervision’ implies an assessment, evaluating the risk for the specific visit and the specific type of communication (e.g. electronic, contact visits, letter). In the context of most visits, supervision will in particular imply visual control. The group recalled Principle 19 of the Body of Principles, which requires that conditions and restrictions of visits have to be ‘specified by law or lawful regulations’. à S ee Chapter 5, Restrictions, discipline and sanctions The Essex group recalled the European Prison Rules, which clearly outline that restrictions and monitoring of visits can only be implemented if and as far as they are ‘necessary for the requirements of continuing criminal investigations, maintenance of good order, safety and security, prevention of criminal offences and protection of victims of crime’. The Rules also specify that ‘such restrictions shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact’.161 See Rule 99 of the European Prison Rules 2006, which makes it clear that untried prisoners should also be allowed to keep in contact with the outside world and that restrictions, if any, on such contact should be particularly carefully limited. 160  Rule 24 (2) of the European Prison Rules 2006. Furthermore, Rule 24 (3) requires national law to specifv ‘national and international bodies and officials with whom communication by prisoners shall not be restricted’. 161  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 47