BACKGROUND GUIDE

General Assembly
Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee
Agenda: Reviewing the enforceability of the “UN
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners”
with special emphasis on non state actors and insurgents.

A letter from the Chair

Greetings delegates,
Welcome to PMUNC 2019! It is a pleasure to welcome you to this
conference which I hope will be a memorable experience for you. I’m
Anoushka Mongia and I’m a 12th grader.
Even though this GA committee is SOCHUM, free feel to discuss the
legal aspects of the problem as well. I’m aware that this committee
could have easily been legal as well, but I feel this agenda has more to
it than just the legalities. My only advice to you is that making this
conference fruitful as well as memorable for you in any way would be
by trying to understand the issue at hand. Going through a thousand
documents wouldn’t make you significant to the committee in any
way. The key is to analyze and absorb what you’re reading. The idea
here is to know what you as an individual and as a representative of
your country thinks and has to contribute to the committee rather than
knowing what the internet does. Consider this background guide as a
starting point for your research; you have a long way to go after
reading it. I hope it helps you! I’m happy to discuss your doubts or
questions pertaining to the background guide or to help you get out of
any pothole you get stuck in while researching, so feel free to reach
out!
Ultimately, I hope this conference helps you gain the wealth of
knowledge, lessons in diplomacy and negotiation and unforgettable
memories.
All the very best and happy researching!
Best,
Anoushka Mongia
Chair, UNGA
anoushka19mongia@gmail.com
 About the committee
Introduction:
The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural committee (SOCHUM), also
the third committee of the United Nations General Assembly
(UNGA), considers a variety of issues ranging from social,
humanitarian affairs and human rights issues of all people around the
world. Over the years, SOCHUM discusses questions relating to the
advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues,
the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms
through the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the
right to self- determination. The Committee also addresses important
social development questions such as issues related to youth, family,
ageing, and persons with disabilities, crime prevention, criminal
justice, and international drug control. Alike other UNGAs,
SOCHUM works closely with other UN and non-UN bodies,
governmental or non-governmental. Together, they work according to
the Charter of the United Nations. In addition, SOCHUM as a UNGA
may request topic-specific reports from other UN agencies, such as
the Human Rights Council. The UN Secretary-General reports
annually to SOCHUM on different agenda items and the committee
vote on the important matters. The votes are to be recorded. At the
end of the session, the committee reports to the plenary bodies of the
GA on topic-specific items.

Committee History:
SOCHUM is one of the main GA committees; therefore, like the other
main committees of the GA, it was established in 1947. And it
follows the rules of the General Assembly, which is indicated in the
Charter of the United Nations. The membership of the SOCHUM
includes all 193 member states. In addition, non-member states and
other entities recognized by the UN as permanent observers may
attend and participate in meetings, but they cannot vote, as opposed to
member states.

Committee Mandate
SOCHUM is a forum for UN Member States to discuss social,
humanitarian, and cultural issues, especially those related to human
rights. The SOCHUM and its subsidiary body, the Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC), take the lead in drafting general
resolutions on these matters. According to the SOCHUM website,
social, humanitarian, and cultural issues include, but are not limited
to: the advancement of women’s rights, the protection of children,
issues related to indigenous affairs, the treatment of refugees and
economic migrants, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through
the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the right to
self- determination. The Committee also addresses important social
development questions such as issues related to youth, family, ageing,
persons with disabilities, and prevention of heinous crime, criminal
justice, and control over the international drug epidemic.
Unlike Security Council resolutions, resolutions passed within the
context of a General Assembly are not binding, SOCHUM serves as
no exception. Resolutions, by in large, is a set of recommendations
for the member states to ratify and adjust accordingly.
 SOME IMPORTANT TERMS-
 Non State Actors
Definition:
Non-state actors are individuals or organizations that have powerful
economic, political or social power and are able to influence at a
national and sometimes international level but do not belong to or
allied themselves to any particular country or state. According to
Pearlman and Cunningham, non-state actors are define as “an
organized political actor not directly connected to the state but
pursing aims that affect vital state interests”
(Pearlman & Cunningham, 2011). Other than having characteristics
such as having power and the ability to influence, non-state actors
have a base or headquarter in a certain state but their activities will
not only be operating in the state itself but will also be operating
beyond the borders of the state.
Non state actors in international law:
The advent of non-state actors such as intergovernmental
organizations, non-governmental organizations, individuals, peoples,
or transnational corporations has changed our outlook on
contemporary international law. Non-state actors have become a
constant factor in modern international relations and they play a vital
role in almost every field of international law and regulation. Issues of
controversy and debate connected with the participation of non-state
actors in the international system include the attribution of
independent legal personality and concomitant legal capacities, the
effectiveness of non-state actors in international negotiations,
including the liability of non-state actors in national and international
legal systems, and the relative lack of judicial protection of non-state
actors. Non state actors are characterized negatively as, indeed, actors
that are not states. This characterization is normatively charged, as it
presupposes that states are the dominant and paradigmatic actors in
international relations and international law, and that
non-state actors are that are at best not easily accommodated by
extant conceptual frameworks, and at worst irrelevant to the
disciplinary analysis. Indeed, in the realist and rational choice strands
of international relations that have dominated discussions of
international power and normatively, non-state actors are typically left
out of the equation. Classic international law and international
relations may— purposively or inadvertently —have turned a blind
eye to the phenomenon of non-state actors, but globalization and
world society theories have increasingly recognized the influence of
such actors on the international community ’ s constitution. They have
drawn attention to the factual and normative power of panoply of
organized transnational entities, such as intergovernmental
organizations, multinational corporations, non-governmental
organizations, armed opposition groups, terrorists, indigenous
peoples, religious movements, etc., whose activities affect people ’ s
lives in at times more incisive ways than those of states. Non-state
actors, even apart from their actual contribution to the content-
determination of substantive legal norms, may have a key role to play
in developing criteria that allow us to separate international law from
other forms of normatively. That being said, one should not force
non-state actors into the straitjacket of international law where this
would require such far-reaching adjustments to the primary and
secondary rules of international legal process, that international law
loses its social validity. This does not equal regulatory defeat,
however. After all, internationally active non-state actors may not
only be regulated by international law, but also by other forms of
regulation that are transnational in nature. Such regulation may
perhaps lack the formal binding character reserved for classic public
international law, but may nevertheless command legitimacy and
compliance at a level only aspired to by international law. The
normative expectations generated by novel forms of regulation—
through ‘ soft law ’ , private regulation, or hybrid state/non-state
arrangements — m ay harden into forms and shades of law, if we
understand law as a set of normative commands steering human
behavior. The landscape of transnational regulation and governance
may thus become a polycentric or pluralistic one, with commands and
expectations emanating from various sources without any one source
dominating, or aspiring to dominate, another. State-based regulation
may not disappear, but be repositioned by the development of
transnational networks, or in the words of Saskia Sassen, ‘ global
assemblages ’ , which imbricate the territorial infrastructure of the
state to project global power. What we ultimately envision here is a
new ontology of global public order that is partly ‘beyond
territoriality’, where new non-state geographies of power, regulation
and responsibility, shaped by a variety of actors, emerge which
supplement, rival, and replace the apparatus of the territorially
delimited nation-state.

 Insurgents
Definition: a person who revolts against civil authority or
an established government especially: a rebel not recognized as a
belligerent.

History and events that lead to the adoption

of “The Nelson Mandela Rules”

1955
First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime &
the Treatment of Offenders.
The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
originally adopted by the First UN Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955,
constitute the universally acknowledged minimum standards
for the management of prison facilities and the treatment of
prisoners, and have been of tremendous value and influence in
the development of prison laws, policies and practices in
Member States all over the world.

2011
Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Group
In recognition of the advances in international law and
correctional science since 1955, however, the General
Assembly decided, in 2011, to establish an open-ended
intergovernmental Expert Group to review and possibly revise
the rules. Relevant UN bodies, other international and
regional organizations, as well as civil society were invited to
contribute to the process. As the custodian of the Standard
Minimum Rules, the United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime (UNODC) closely accompanied the revision process by
serving as its Secretariat.

2015
Commission on Crime Prevention & Criminal Justice
(CCPCJ)
At its fourth meeting held in Cape Town, South Africa, in
March 2015, the Expert Group reached consensus on all of the
rules opened for revision. In May 2015, the Commission on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) endorsed the
revised rules and submitted the entire set of the revised SMRs
for approval by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
and subsequent adoption by the General Assembly.

2015
The Nelson Mandela Rules
In December 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the
revised rules as the “United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
for the Treatment of Prisoners”. As per the recommendation
of the Expert Group, the revised rules are to be known as "the
Nelson Mandela Rules" to honor the legacy of the late
President of South Africa, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, who
spent 27 years in prison in the course of his struggle for global
human rights, equality, democracy and the promotion of a
culture of peace.
 Treatment of prisoners in international
Humanitarian law (prisoners of war)
International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules which
seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the efforts of armed
conflict. It protects people who are not, or are no longer,
participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and
methods of welfare. International humanitarian law is also
known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict.
International humanitarian law is a part of international law
which is the body of rules governing relations between states.
International humanitarian law doesn't regulate whether a
state may actually use force; this is governed by a distinct part
of international law set out in the United Nations Charter.

Although combatants and other persons taking a direct part in

hostilities are military objectives and may be attacked, the
moment such persons surrender or are rendered hors de
combat, they become entitled to protection. That protection is
provided for in Common Article 3 and the First and Third
Geneva Conventions (GC) relating to the treatment of the
‘wounded, sick and shipwrecked’ and ‘prisoners of war’
(POW) respectively; supplemented (for international
conflicts) by Additional Protocol I. These conventions are
binding as treaty law, but the key provisions are in any event
customary in nature. Humanitarian treatment of prisoners of
war was not emphasized until the second half of the
nineteenth century. The Hague Regulations did not prevent
many of the hardships that prisoners suffered during World
War I; they did provide an enlightened basis for regulation.
Besides the failure to anticipate the problems that arose in
World War I, the chief defect of the regulations were a lack of
specificity and the absence of any enforcement procedures.
After the First World War, a conference at Geneva adopted
new, more elaborate rules. Like the prior rules, the new rules
did not anticipate the new modes of warfare adopted in the
Would War that followed their acceptance.

WRONGFUL TREATMENT OF
INMATES IN PRISON-

CAUSES-
Treatment issues related to cultural
minorities:
There is no denying that the ethnic and cultural composition
of offender populations is quite different from that of society
as a whole. Overlapping theoretical perspectives that explain
why certain racial or ethnic groups are overrepresented among
offenders:
 Social isolation
 Social disintegration
 Resource deprivation
 Violent cultural orientation
The social isolation model states that the dominant group will
always choose to maintain a social distance between itself and
minority groups, and to this end may employ discriminatory
laws and policies. Social disintegration models look at how
weakened informal and institutional social controls lead to
increased crime. The resource deprivation theory emphasizes
that economic variables such as unemployment, poverty, and
income inequality are associated with crime. The idea of a
subculture of violence implies that violent interactions are
more accepted among some groups than others, for example
in gang culture.

Treatment based on sexual orientation:

Sexual orientation and sexual behaviour are not necessarily
congruent, especially within a prison or jail. Many offenders
who engage in homosexual activity while in jail or prison do
not self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. The
bisexual/heterosexual group felt more pressure to have sex
and often used it to gain the protection of another inmate. This
is perhaps a result of the fact that the group was small in
number and that other inmates sought them as sexual partners.
Most of the group believed that their fellow jail inmates
treated them disrespectfully. Only a few gay inmates and none
of the bisexuals felt that jail personnel tolerated gay behaviour
or gay or bisexual individuals. More than a third of this group
feared being raped in prison and believed that having the
protection of a heterosexual was the best way to do prison
time. In male institutions, individuals who do self-identify as
gay are often victims of rape and/or physical violence. They
may need to resort to violence to protect them or else become
a sexual partner of someone who can protect them.

Treatment issues for older adults:

Age is a factor associated with positive treatment outcomes.
The older one is the more likely one is to stay in treatment,
complete treatment, and have positive outcomes following
treatment. For some older clients the negative consequences
of a criminal lifestyle accumulate over time, while the body
becomes less capable of managing substance abuse and
related stressors, leading to a desire for change. Engaging
these individuals in treatment may be relatively easy.
However, older offenders also have unique issues that
counselors need to be prepared to address. For one, this
population is more prone to health problems. Visual
impairments and hearing loss are factors, along with chronic
health problems, senile dementia, and dementia related to
long-term substance abuse. Other characteristics typical of
this population that complicate treatment include
 A slow response to directions
 Rigid habits
 The likelihood of a physical condition presenting as an
emotional problem
 Lifelong patterns of criminal behavior that cannot easily
be altered
 A lack of assertiveness, suggesting that younger, more
verbal inmates are more likely to get treatment.
Treatment Issues for Clients from Rural
Areas:
Clients from rural communities have distinct cultures that
differ from region to region. Treatment staff working with
clients from a particular rural population should seek to
understand that culture in the same way they would any other.
Increasingly, offenders from urban areas are being sent to
prisons located in rural regions and staffed by local residents;
here again, a cultural clash can develop, and training can help
staff understand the cultural background of offenders coming
from urban areas.
Services available in rural areas may also be more limited
than those in more densely populated regions. A rural jail, for
example, is generally unable to develop a substance abuse
treatment program because its resources are limited.
Community supervision programs in rural areas also have
particular difficulties. Few programs will be available, there is
little coordination between programs, privacy and
confidentiality may be difficult to maintain, and certain types
of substance abuse (e.g., excessive alcohol consumption) may
be the norm in the area.

Treatment Issues Based on the Client's

Cognitive/Learning, Physical, and Sensory
Disabilities:
Jails and prisons can be difficult places for people with
physical disabilities (e.g., there may be no wheelchair access
and bathrooms may not be fitted with hand rails). Sometimes
clients with disabilities can be moved to other facilities that
are not necessarily appropriate for them, given their sentence
(e.g., they may be moved to a medium security facility even
though their sentence warrants maximum security). Certain
physical disabilities require medication, and this can pose
particular problems for treatment facilities in jails and prisons.
Facilities may need to give offenders medications at specific
times that could conflict with other scheduled activities.
Clients under community supervision require a support
system that can help them manage their medication and
oversee compliance.
Clients who have conditions such as diabetes that require the
administration of medication by means of a syringe may face
daily what could be a significant trigger for substance use. In
the community, they will have to contend with the theft or use
of their syringes by others. These clients will need assistance
in looking at these triggers and developing a relapse
prevention plan that addresses them

EFFECTS-

Trauma and hopelessness:

Inmates' responses to prison environments vary, but virtually
all experience some degree of trauma and hopelessness. The
sociological and personal profiles of prisoners put them in a
particular category of people likely to feel hopelessness. The
inmates who are most likely to have difficulty coping in
prison
 Have unstable family, living, work, and/or education
histories
 Are single, young, and male
 Exhibit histories of chronic substance abuse or
psychological problems
When accompanied by violence and exploitation from other
inmates or custodial staff, the sense of trauma and
hopelessness can be magnified. Sexual assaults are
particularly devastating, with a series of accompanying
medical, psychological, and social costs.
Even for inmates who do not suffer abuse or exploitation
while in prison, the trauma of incarceration alone may worsen
existing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or create PTSD-
like symptoms. Markers of PTSD include Irritability, Hyper
vigilance; sleep difficulties, restricted range of affect, Feelings
of detachment and Flashbacks and/or nightmares of traumatic
incidents (American Psychiatric Association 2000).
Most of the people we send to prison are young men from
marginalized urban areas. They are multiply disadvantaged
and most suffer from chronic drug addiction. While, in
general, women are less likely to commit suicide, women in
prison share many of the personal and sociological
characteristics found among male prisoners, and as such,
female prisoners are equally vulnerable to experience
hopelessness.
A recent study shows that prisoners experience high levels of
psychological difficulties and significant feelings of
hopelessness. It found that one in two prisoners had thought
about killing himself at some point in his life and one in three
had tried to do so.

Inmate Identity and Culture:

Unlike jail detainees, who are likely to be incarcerated for
short terms, prisoners often learn to identify as inmates as a
matter of survival. In part, this is a result of institutional
pressures on them, and partly it is the result of interactions
with other inmates who have accepted the role or persona of a
prisoner. In prisons, as opposed to jails, there are many more
people who are accustomed to the setting and who take the
attitude that it is “no big deal.” The assumption of an identity
as an inmate is an issue of survival for most offenders. The
hardened demeanor and “macho” attitude adopted as part of
the inmate culture can discourage offenders from participating
in treatment. Treatment is often perceived as a sign of
“weakness” within the inmate culture, and inmates who enroll
in treatment are often characterized by other prisoners as too
weak to “handle their drugs” in the community.

Sexual violence inside prisons:

Prison is a violent place. One type of violence that is often
attributed to prison settings is sexual victimization. Sexual
victimization includes a range of behaviour from sexually
abusive conduct to non-consensual sexual assaults and has a
variety of severe public health consequences. Rape provides
an opportunity for spreading sexually transmitted diseases, a
matter of particular concern in prisons, where HIV infection
rates are higher than in the general population. Sexual
victimization can foment rage, leading to future violence
either inside or outside prison, as well as depression and acts
of self violence, such as drug use or suicidal ideation and
gestures. Lawsuits by former prisoners who experienced rape
and sexual abuse behind bars compelled Human Rights Watch
to investigate the issue. While the estimated rate of
victimization varies significantly across studies, the
characteristics of the victims reported in these studies are
more similar. First, rates of sexual coercion are higher than
rates of sexual assault or rape, independent of gender. More
specifically, unwanted and sexually suggestive touching of
breasts, genitals, or buttocks is more typical inside prison than
the act of rape itself. Second, in the vast majority of studies,
male facilities have been found to have higher rates of sexual
assault compared to female facilities. Yet the perpetrators of
sexual assaults against female inmates, compared to male
inmates, are less likely to involve staff. Third, younger
inmates are at greater risk of sexual victimization, particularly
if they are new arrivals to a facility and are serving their first
convictions. This may explain in part why rates of sexual
victimizations vary across facilities within the same prison
system. Facilities with a younger population would be
expected to have higher rates of victimization than those
facilities with a more mature and acculturated prison
population. Fourth, inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization has
an interracial bias, with victims most likely being White and
sexual aggressors most likely being Black. This interracial
pattern of victimization has been attributed to revenge for
historical oppression and the reversal of racial dominance
inside prison.

Further research:
I would recommend you to further your research by
firstly reading the “UN Minimum Standard Rules for
the treatment of prisoners” and the later adopted
“Nelson Mandela Rules”
(https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-
reform/GA-RESOLUTION/E_ebook.pdf ). You can
further segregate your research into various kinds of
groups. For example- women, non state actors,
insurgents, minorities, children etc. I would urge you to
understand things better by going through case studies
regarding wrongful treatment of inmates and with that
trying to understand the extent till which these rules
adopted by the UN are being enforced in member states.
When you make yourself familiar with the statement of
the problem, then try and seek various ways to solve it.
Make sure all your sources are credible and refrain from
using Wikipedia at all times. UN reports and websites
are always reliable sources to get your information
from. Happy researching!