RISK FACTORS AND MEASURES TO REDUCE RISK …the women’s quarters were separated from the men in that one had to go through a closed metal door to enter the women’s quarters. The door was guarded by a male detainee guard in a green uniform. In practice, the delegation observed that on a number of occasions the male detainee guard and other men (including the chef de brigade) entered the women’s quarters with no warning. 52 ” Monitoring bodies should therefore not only check whether women are being held separately from men, but whether this separation is enforced in practice. They should also assess the possibility of whether staff, including women staff, may be complicit in allowing or even facilitating interaction between women and men, without any safeguards, such as those referred to earlier. d. Supervision by male staff / mixed gender staffing Women are at risk of sexual abuse, if male staff are involved in their supervision, and especially if male staff are allowed to work in contact positions with female prisoners. Such actions may include, at best, spying on women when they are in their private accommodation areas, in showers and toilets, entering accommodation areas of women when they are in a state of undress, at worst, demanding sex in exchange for services and goods and rape as a matter of routine. Women who complain of abuse often receive no response from authorities and experience retaliation from male staff. Recognising the vulnerability of women to sexual abuse, the revised Standard Minimum Rules prohibit any involvement of male staff in the supervision of women’s prisons.53 However, this rule is not applied in many countries, sometimes due to a shortage of female prison staff, in other cases because of concerns for equal employment opportunities, and in some because mixed gender staffing is regarded as a practice which can normalise prison life. In a small number of countries mixed gender staffing in women’s prisons has been proven to bring ‘normalising’ benefits. But the success of such an approach relies heavily on a sufficient number of staff with adequate training, the strict enforcement of safeguards, the effectiveness of confidential complaints’ mechanisms and the existence of independent inspections. In societies where the ‘normal’ is not what is desirable (e.g. where a culture of gender based discrimination and violence is prevalent), in systems where human rights violations in prisons are widespread and where human and financial resource restrictions hinder the adequate training of staff, the risks of such a policy are very high, with possible devastating consequences for the prisoners. For example, sexual abuse, including rape, by male staff in prisons in the USA, where a mixed gender staffing policy is implemented, has been documented and reported on numerous occasions.54 The revised Standard Minimum Rules are very clear on this issue, and the Bangkok Rules, which supplement the revised Standard Minimum Rules, have not introduced any new provisions in relation to the gender of staff allowed to work in women’s prisons. Monitoring bodies should be aware of this and use these rules as a reference point in their assessment of risk factors and recommendations. But if male staff are, nevertheless, allowed to work in women’s prisons, contrary to the provisions of the revised Standard Minimum Rules and the Bangkok Rules and to recommendations by monitoring bodies, such bodies should check whether male staff are ever employed in positions responsible for the direct supervision of prisoners, whether they are allowed access to private areas, such as dormitories and sanitary areas, or placed in a position where they can observe these areas. They should make recommendations, at the very least, to bring such practices to an end, where they exist. They should also be aware that female staff do also abuse women prisoners, thus policies to protect women prisoners from violence are necessary also in prisons where women staff are responsible for the supervision of prisoners. Monitoring bodies should also pay special attention to the recruitment and training of all staff who work in women’s prisons, with reference to the Bangkok Rules55 and women’s access to independent and confidential complaints’ mechanisms.56 They should also try to assess whether women prisoners who report abuse are provided with protection, support and counselling, as required by the Bangkok Rules, while their claims are investigated by independent authorities.57 Such examination should include the legislative framework governing prisons, as well as practice, where possible. e. Searching policies and practices Personal searches is a highly sensitive issue for all prisoners, but especially women because of their typical background, which may involve having been subjected to sexual violence. In all societies, but especially in societies where women have a subordinate role to men and where 52. Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment to Benin, CAT/OP/ BEN/1, 15 March 2011, para 185. 53. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 81. 54. See for example, ‘Frequent and severe’ sexual violence alleged at women’s prison in Alabama’, NBC News, 23 May 2012, http://usnews.nbcnews. com/_news/2012/05/23/11830574-frequent-and-severe-sexual-violence-alleged-at-womens-prison-in-alabama?lite <accessed 24 November 2015>; ‘Sentenced to Rape—Behind Bars in America’, The Daily Beast, 10 November 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/10/sentencedto-rape-behind-bars-in-america.html <accessed 24 November 2015>; All too Familiar, Sexual Abuse of Women in U.S. State Prisons, Human Rights Watch, 1996; Kim Shayo Buchanan, Impunity: Sexual Abuse in Women’s Prisons, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review [Vol. 42], pp45-87. 55. Bangkok Rules, Rules 29 to 35. 56. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 56 (3) and 57 (1). 57. Bangkok Rules, Rule 25 (1) and (2). Penal Reform International | Women in Detention: a guide to gender-sensitive monitoring | 11