ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES of Prisons recommends that authorities use alternative vehicles for women affected by previous trauma because of the inappropriateness of cellular vehicles.199 The Essex group highlighted the relevance of Rule 5(2), i.e. the obligation to make reasonable accommodation and adjustments for persons with disabilities. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) defines ‘reasonable accommodation’ as: ‘necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms’.200 This applies not only for logistical requirements such as wheelchair ramps, but may include a range of other measures, e. g. breaks. The CRPD requires consultation with and active involvement of persons with disabilities including through their representative organisations in the development of policies and other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to persons with disabilities.201 Use of restraints Transfers are one of the situations in which the use of restraints is common to prevent prisoner escapes. Rule 47(2) acknowledges this and provides a basis for national laws to authorise the use of restraints ‘as a precaution against escape during a transfer’. However, the Essex group recalled that such authorisation is subject to Rule 43(1), which prohibits the use of any restrictions that ‘amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Nor does such authorisation render void the principles of necessity and proportionality. This means that restraints may only be used when such use is deemed necessary, rather than automatically during every transfer. Precautions need to be taken to prevent physical harm of passengers who are restrained in vehicles in case of break action or accident, in particular as restraints compromise the ability of prisoners to protect themselves from falling forward. Concern has been expressed, for example, by the SPT, regarding the use of extreme security measures irrespective of the detainee’s category (remand or convicted) or their security assessment, and with regard to the practice of routinely using handcuffs or waist restraints during transfers of detainees by air.202 Furthermore, Rule 47(2) is explicit regarding the obligation to remove restraints when the detainee or prisoner appears before a judicial or administrative authority. This is in recognition of the subliminal message restraints may send to judges or juries; as regards untried prisoners, this is a precondition for the presumption of innocence. It should also be noted that when prisoners are transported to medical care facilities outside the prison, e.g. for specialised treatment in hospitals, restraints need to be removed unless strictly necessary, as they may hinder medical treatment and compromise the doctor-patient relationship. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for women in prison, Version 1, 2014, p. 17. 199  Article 2, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, A/61/611. 200  Article 4(3), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 201  SPT, Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to New Zealand, 28 July 2014, CAT/OP/NZL/1, para. 111 (SPT Report on visit to New Zealand). 202  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 57