If something is wrong inside a prison, who can the person tell?

AnalysisRights that cannot be asserted are descriptions. The Standard Minimum Rules set out at length what people in detention are entitled to, and every one of those entitlements depends on someone being able to say when it is not being provided — to somebody who can do something, without being punished for it.

It begins before any complaint arises. Rule 54 requires that on admission every prisoner be promptly provided with written information about the prison law and applicable regulations; about their rights, including authorised methods of seeking information, access to legal advice including through legal aid schemes, and the procedures for making requests or complaints; about their obligations, including applicable disciplinary sanctions; and about all other matters necessary to adapt to prison life.

Rule 55 makes that information reach people rather than merely exist. It must be available in the most commonly used languages according to the needs of the prison population, with interpretation assistance where a prisoner understands none of them; conveyed orally where a prisoner is illiterate; and provided in an appropriate manner to prisoners with sensory disabilities.

The routes extend beyond the prisoner. Rule 56(4) provides that the rights extend to the prisoner’s legal adviser, and that where neither the prisoner nor the legal adviser can exercise them, a member of the prisoner’s family or any other person with knowledge of the case may do so.

Rule 57 then addresses what happens next. Every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without delay; and if it is rejected, or in the event of undue delay, the complainant is entitled to bring it before a judicial or other authority. Silence is treated the same as refusal, which closes the most obvious way of defeating a complaints system.

The protection is stated in terms. Rule 57(2) requires safeguards ensuring prisoners can make requests or complaints safely and, if requested, confidentially, and provides that a complainant — or a family member or other person acting for them — must not be exposed to any risk of retaliation, intimidation or other negative consequences as a result of having submitted a request or complaint.

• Common belief: Prison complaints go to the prison.

  In practice: Rule 56 provides three routes: daily to the director or an authorised staff member, confidentially to the inspector during inspections, and without censorship as to substance to the central administration and to judicial or other competent authorities.

• Common belief: A complaint that gets no answer has failed.

  In practice: Rule 57(1) entitles the complainant to bring the matter before a judicial or other authority if the complaint is rejected “or in the event of undue delay”. Delay is treated as a refusal.

• Common belief: Only the prisoner can complain.

  In practice: Rule 56(4) extends the rights to the prisoner’s legal adviser and, where neither can exercise them, to a family member or any other person with knowledge of the case.

• Common belief: Serious allegations are handled through the same complaints process.

  In practice: Rule 57(3) requires allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to be dealt with immediately and to result in a prompt and impartial investigation by an independent national authority.

• Common belief: Telling prisoners their rights is a formality.

  In practice: Rules 54 and 55 require the information on admission to cover complaint procedures and legal advice, and to be provided in a language the prisoner understands, orally where they are illiterate and appropriately where they have sensory disabilities.

What the standard requires, in the order a complaint would travel.

• Information on admission about rights, legal advice and complaint procedures, in a form the person can actually receive — Rules 54 and 55.
• Three routes: daily internal, confidential to an inspector, and uncensored to authorities outside the prison — Rule 56.
• A prompt reply, with rejection or undue delay opening a route to a judicial or other authority — Rule 57(1).
• Express protection against retaliation, intimidation or other negative consequences — Rule 57(2).
• Torture allegations removed from the ordinary process to a prompt, impartial, independent national investigation — Rule 57(3).

The confidential route to an inspector is where this page and prison inspection meet. The same rule that lets an inspector interview prisoners privately is the rule that gives a prisoner somewhere to speak — which is why the inspection powers are not a technicality about inspectors but a condition of anyone inside being heard.

AnalysisThe anti-retaliation provision is the one that makes the others operable. Every route in the standard depends on a person being willing to use it, and willingness depends on what happens afterwards to people who did.

• This describes what one agreed international standard requires. It is not a description of the complaints system in any country, and whether any system meets the standard is not assessed.
• National complaint and ombudsman arrangements for prisons were not researched for this page.

Related: who inspects a prison, effective remedy, and why justice systems need oversight.