RISK FACTORS DERIVING FROM AN OVEREMPHASIS ON SECURITY Discrimination against women during classification In Thailand, according to a 2013 report, some male prisons were reported to house a small number of women inmates in a separate section. Only one male officer was responsible for classification and women were often uncomfortable with sharing information with a male prison guard.38 The Australian Human Rights Commission reported in 2012 that due to the lack of a sufficient number of women’s prisons, female prisoners were being detained in maximum security prisons with male prisoners, increasing the risk of abuse.39 UNODC reported in 2007 that in Afghanistan the same methods for classification were used for men and women. Information about a history of domestic violence, sexual abuse and parental responsibility was not addressed or recorded, and therefore procedures did not provide information essential for enabling adequate classification of women prisoners.40 A proper classification system is needed to categorise prisoners based on well-defined criteria, such as the exceptionally grave nature of the offence,41 or persistently dangerous behaviour and attitudes that represent a serious threat to staff or other detainees. Decisions to place prisoners in highly restrictive settings should only be made after a thorough and structured assessment of risk and a judgement that this risk cannot be managed in other ways. It should involve a detailed analysis of a prisoner’s current offence, its nature, seriousness, pattern of previous offences and disciplinary, escape and incident history. It should also take into account personal and situational factors, such as age, gender, vulnerability, family and community support. Risk assessments should make use of the best available information gathered from documents and interviews, and ensure that decisions are not compromised by cultural, gender or social bias. Risk assessment instruments should be used to develop an individualised implementation of a sentence and be periodically repeated to allow for a dynamic re‑assessment of the detainee’s risk. The decision should be appropriately documented in order to facilitate effective oversight. A recommendation by the Council of Europe concerning dangerous prisoners further suggests assessments be linked to opportunities for offenders to address their needs and change their attitudes and behaviour, and for the offender to be involved in the assessment. Another recommendation emphasises the need to differentiate between the offender’s risk to the outside community and inside prison.42 For women prisoners, the UN Bangkok Rules require that prison administrators develop and implement classification methods addressing the gender-specific needs and circumstances of women prisoners to ensure appropriate and individualised planning and implementation towards early rehabilitation, treatment and reintegration into society.43 3. Instruments of restraint In order to maintain order and security, detaining authorities may resort to instruments of physical restraint such as handcuffs, ankle cuffs, body belts, strait jackets or electro-shock devices. However, some instruments of restraint are prohibited explicitly by international law. The prohibition of the use of restraints that are ‘inherently degrading or painful’, such as chains or irons and body-worn electro-shock devices, derives from the general prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and has been enshrined in the revised Standard Minimum Rules (2015).44 Body-worn electro-shock belts, sleeves or cuffs, which encircle parts of the subject’s body (usually the waist, but variants have been developed to fit on legs or arms) and deliver an electric shock when a remote control device is activated, have been found to inflict pain and mental suffering by their very nature, as well as to have a humiliating and degrading effect. Consequently, they have been increasingly condemned. The UN Committee against Torture has recommended the abolition of electro-shock stun belts and restraint chairs as methods of restraining those in custody, noting that their use often violates Article 16 of the Convention against Torture.45 The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) opposes the ‘use of electric stun belts for controlling the movement of detained persons, whether inside or outside places of deprivation of liberty.’46 The use of other physical restraints is legitimate only if lawful, necessary and proportionate.47 They should 38. UNODC, East-Asia Pacific Regional Meeting on the Implementation of the Bangkok Rules, Bangkok, 19 to 21 February 2013, UNODC/JSDO/ BKEGM/2013/1, 14 March 2013, paras.39, 47. 39. Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Study Tour Report, Visit of the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, 10-20 April 2012, p4. 40. Tomris Atabay/UNODC, Afghanistan: female prisoners and their social reintegration, March 2007, p74. 41. However, the placement should not be based exclusively on the prisoner’s sentence but on an individual risk assessment, see for example European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) report on its 2011 visit to Serbia, CPT/Inf (2012) 17, p32. 42. Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning dangerous offenders, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 February 2014 at the 1192nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. 43. Rule 40 and 41, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), adopted by the UN General Assembly on 21 December 2010, A/RES/65/229. 44. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 47 (1). 45. Committee against Torture, for example, Concluding observations on United States of America, A/55/44, May 2000, para.180c. 46. 20th Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), para.74, CPT (2011) CPT Standards CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 – Rev. 2011. 47. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979, Article 3. 10 | Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring