ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The Essex group reiterated the recommendation of their second meeting, that the principle of legality requires detailed procedures in national law under regular review, laying out the types of restraints that may be used, the circumstances in which each type may be applied, the members of staff who are authorised to take respective decisions and which clarify the recording requirements (see also Rule 8(c, e)).375 Recalling the negotiations on this provision, the Essex group noted that Rule 48(1a) encapsulates the principle of necessity in that it limits the use of instruments of restraint to situations where ‘no lesser form of control would be effective to address the risks posed by unrestricted movement’. The experts recalled guidance provided by the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which uses the formulation ‘if other means remain ineffective or without promise of achieving the intended result’, and only where use of force is ‘unavoidable’. They also highlighted the relevance, in this regard, of Rule 49, which requires the provision of ‘training in the use of control techniques that would obviate the need for the imposition of instruments of restraint or reduce their intrusiveness’. The Essex group referred to Rule 48(1b) which captures the principle of proportionality in more practical terms, i.e. the method of restraint used must be the ‘least intrusive method that is necessary and reasonably available to control the prisoner’s movement, based on the level and nature of the risks posed’. It was further noted that the principles of necessity and proportionality imply an assessment on an individual, case-to-case basis and a regular review. This is captured in Rule 48(1c), which determines that instruments of restraint shall be ‘imposed only for the time period required’, i.e. they have to be ‘removed as soon as possible after the risks posed by unrestricted movement are no longer present’. Furthermore, it was emphasised that even if the use of instruments of restraint is legal, necessary and proportionate it must be applied in the least painful way. The Beijing Rules, for example, reflect this by stating that their use ‘should not cause humiliation and degradation’. They also add the requirement that ‘the director should at once consult medical and other relevant personnel and report to the higher administrative authority’.376 Rule 47 (2b) requires not only that the physician or another qualified health-care professional be alerted to the situation, but also that they personally check on the individual concerned. It was emphasised that in order to be in a position to apply these principles prison staff need to be provided with appropriate practical training, as is enshrined in Rule 49 and Rule 76(1c). (See Chapter 2, Prison Management) Role of medical personnel The Essex group highlighted Rule 46, which is dedicated to the role of health-care personnel in the context of disciplinary sanctions and other restrictive measures. The experts stressed that these provisions apply to both (disciplinary) sanctions and ‘other restrictive measures’ and irrespective of the type of sanction or restriction, including instruments of restraint. Essex 2, p. 13. 375  Rule 64 of the UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. 376  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 96