ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Such conditions should equally be applied to fathers, as expressed in paragraph 12 of the preliminary observations to the UN Bangkok Rules, recognising ‘the central role of both parents in the lives of children’.169 Conjugal visits The Essex group noted that conjugal visits170 help maintain emotional bonds between partners and spouses and allow for some normalisation of relationships despite the limits placed on family life by the imprisonment of one partner. The maintenance of intimate bonds has a positive impact on the well-being and on rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners. In the light of this rationale, the experts recommended to facilitate conjugal visits and not to interpret the beneficiaries of conjugal visits too narrowly. The participants highlighted the contradiction between the denial of conjugal visits and the right to found a family, as enshrined in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, the group held that the denial of conjugal visits would contradict the principle that limitations should only be those ‘demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration’, while otherwise prisoners retain all human rights and fundamental freedoms.171 The European Court of Human Rights has also held that the ‘inability to beget children is not an inevitable consequence of imprisonment’.172 At a minimum, Rule 58(2) requires that ‘women prisoners shall be able to exercise this right on an equal basis with men’, reiterating the UN Bangkok Rules. Where conjugal visits are allowed, they need to be applied without discrimination.173 The experts reflected on the argument used in some countries for denying women conjugal visits, namely to prevent pregnancy while in prison. The experts highlighted their concern that the consequences of limiting conjugal visits for women prisoners on these grounds may be permanent in that it may de facto deprive women of having children altogether. Moreover, such limitation denies the right to family and private life not only to the woman prisoner, but also to her partner. Another argument often invoked for denying conjugal visits for women prisoners is the risk of violence from male partners. The experts noted that this concern would equally apply to women visiting their husbands in prison on a conjugal visit, yet is not brought up as an argument against conjugal visits for male prisoners. Moreover, the concern has been addressed by new Rule 58(2). It stipulates that procedures need to be in place and premises made available ‘to ensure fair and equal access with due regard to safety and dignity’. Preliminary observations, para. 12, states that ‘Some of these rules address issues applicable to both men and women prisoners, including those relating to parental responsibilities (...). However, as the focus includes the children of imprisoned mothers, there is a need to recognize the central role of both parents in the lives of children. Accordingly, some of these rules would apply equally to male prisoners and offenders who are fathers.’ 169  Conjugal visit is a term used to describe a visit of a prisoner by their spouse or partner in order to be able to exercise an intimate relationship. This institution recognises the fact that intimacy between partners is an important prerequisite to preserve the bonds in a relationship, and acknowledges the positive impact of continued relationships for reintegration after release. 170  OHCHR, Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners,1990, Principle 5, referring to the rights set out in (among others) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Optional Protocol. 171  Dickson v United Kingdom [2007] ECHR 44362/04 (Grand Chamber, 4 December 2007), para. 74. The case concerned a prisoners’ access to artificial insemination facilities whilst in prison and the right to family life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  172  Rule 27 of the UN Bangkok Rules; Rule 58(2) of the Nelson Mandela Rules. 173  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 49