FACTSHEET
Body searches are only permissible when strictly
necessary, based on a case-by-case assessment and if
there is a specific suspicion. Where they are conducted
on a routine basis, too frequently, in a systematic or
collective way to all detainees, body searches become
arbitrary measures and may in themselves constitute
humiliating or degrading treatment. The reasons for
detention and the overall classification (for prisons – low-,
medium- or high-risk), as well as the previous behavioural
history of the detainee will play a role in the case-by-case
decision on whether or not a search is necessary.
The European Court of Human Rights
considered inhuman and degrading
treatment a general regime of routine
weekly strip searches, including an anal
inspection, even where there had been no
contact with the outside world;11 or full body
searches to which a complainant had been
subjected between four and eight times a
day, in addition to having to undress and
bend over, and force used if he resisted.12
Body searches also need to respect the criterion of
proportionality, which relates to their frequency as well
as to the requirement to select the least intrusive method
to attain the security objective. Therefore, strip searches
must only be performed when pat-down searches are
insufficient to check whether any substance or objects
have been hidden.13 The degrading and threatening
nature of dog searches should be kept in mind.14
Body-cavity searches are conducted to locate and
remove objects (eg illegal drugs) that may be concealed
in the rectum/vagina, colon or elsewhere inside the body.
As they constitute the most intrusive search method,
and carry a risk of physical and psychological injury,
invasive body searches should only be the last resort
when all other alternatives have been exploited.15 These
alternatives may include modern scanning technology.16
In many cases it will be sufficient to keep the prisoner
under close supervision until such time as any illicit item
is naturally expelled from the body, as suggested by
World Health Organization (WHO).17 The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights18 and some national
jurisdictions19 have prohibited invasive body searches
altogether.
A strip or cavity search should not be conducted if it is
likely to cause injury to the prisoner. They should always
be authorised by the chief executive officer, in writing.
Alternative screening methods, such as scans or metal
detectors, should be developed and used ‘to replace
strip searches and invasive body searches, in order to
avoid the harmful psychological and possible physical
impact of invasive body searches’.20
The reason for the search, the identities of those who
conducted it and any findings should be put on record
for all searches, but in particular for strip and body cavity
searches and searches of cells.21
Monitoring bodies should also enquire into the
consequences for a detainee who refuses to undergo a
search or to obey a related order, eg to bend over or to
cough. Such a refusal will likely constitute a disciplinary
offence, with sanctions ranging from withdrawal of
benefits (eg employment in a workshop) or suspension of
visits to isolation or even solitary confinement. Excessive
sanctions against detainees who refuse to endure body
searches, in particular where these are unnecessary,
disproportionate or humiliating, are another risk factor for
abuse that requires the attention of monitoring bodies.
At Thiva Women’s Prison in Greece, the
CPT found that ‘if a prisoner refuses a
vaginal search, she will be transferred to the
segregation unit for several days where she
will be placed under CCTV surveillance or
accompanied by a prison officer.22
11. European Court of Human Rights, Van der Ven vs Netherlands, 4 February 2003; Lorsé vs Netherland, 4 February 2003.
12. European Court of Human Rights, El Shennawy v. France, 20 January 2011.
13. See Article 57 of the French Prison Law ‘Full body searches are possible only when pat-down searches or the use of technological means are
insufficient’.
14. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), ‘Body Searches: The Problems and Guidelines to Solutions’, 28 September 2001, CPT (2001)
66.
15. See revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 52 (1).
16. Ibid.
17. Møller L, Stöver H, Jürgens R, Gatherer A and Nikogasian H, (eds.), Health in prisons, A WHO guide to the essentials in prison health, WHO Europe,
2007, p36; see also PRI/Thailand Institute of Justice, Guidance Document on the United Nations Rules on the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Noncustodial Measures for Women Offenders (The Bangkok Rules), 2013, p63.
18. ‘Intrusive vaginal or anal searches shall be prohibited by law’, Principle XXI, Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of
Liberty in the Americas.
19. See Article 57 of the 2009 French Prison Law. In Brazil, five states have also prohibited invasive searches: Paraíba, Goiás, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio de
Janeiro and Minas Gerais.
20. See revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 52 (1) and Rule 20 of the UN Bangkok Rules: ‘Alternative screening methods, such as scans, shall be
developed to replace strip searches and invasive body searches, in order to avoid the harmful psychological and possible physical impact of invasive
body searches’.
21. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 51; UN Bangkok Rules, Commentary to Rule 19.
22. Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) 2011 visit to Greece, para. 50.
Penal Reform International | Body searches: Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment
|3