Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule126
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:12:21+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning visits by the ICRC, see Rule 124. For practice concerning visits of legal counsel, see Rule 100. For practice concerning visits by religious personnel, see Rule 127.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 116, first para.
Article 37(c) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that every child deprived of liberty “shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through … visits, save in exceptional circumstances”.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 44/25, 20 November 1989, Article 37(c).
(e) Guarantee access by the competent and legally authorized authorities and institutions to the places where persons are deprived of liberty, if necessary with prior authorization from a judicial authority.
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 61/177, 20 December 2006, Annex, Preamble and Article 17(2)(d)-(e).
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the 1st UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Geneva, 30 August 1955, UN Doc. A/CONF/6/1, Annex I, A, adopted on 30 August 1955, approved by the UN Economic and Social Council, Res. 663 C (XXIV), 31 July 1957, extended by Res. 2076 (LXII), 13 May 1977 to persons arrested or imprisoned without charge, Rule 37.
Prisoners shall be allowed to communicate with their families and, subject to the needs of treatment, security and good order, persons or representatives of outside organisations and to receive visits from these persons as often as possible.
Recommendation No. R (87) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States of the Council of Europe on the European Prison Rules, adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 404th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, Strasbourg, 12 February 1987, Rule 43(1).
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 43/173, 9 December 1988, Principle 19.
Central to the issue [of the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] is that detainees are treated well and humanely.
During detention, emphasis is also placed upon the opportunity for detainees to … receive visitors … These requirements though will be considered with regard to the length of detention.
Family members, relatives … of detainees or arrested persons must be granted free access to the detention center/jail where the detainees are held, in accordance with the law and [Armed Forces of the Philippines/Philippines National Police] policy.
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § b(2).
Every internee must be allowed to receive visitors, especially near relatives, at regular intervals and as frequently as possible. When possible, internees must also be allowed to visit their homes in urgent cases, particularly in cases of death or serious illness of relatives.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 70.
Every internee must be allowed to receive visitors, especially near relatives, at regular intervals and as frequently as possible. As far as possible, internees should also be allowed to visit their homes in cases of urgency, especially death or serious illness of relatives.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.71.
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 116 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 323.
… Obtain theater commander’s approval for external visit times and coordinate visits to detainee facilities with the TDRC [theater detainee reporting center] and joint visitor bureau.
Note. Numerous pieces of domestic legislation and administrative regulations provide for the right of detainees to be visited by their relatives. These have not all been listed here.
Afghanistan, Juvenile Code, 2005, Article 46.
Afghanistan, Juvenile Code, 2005, Article 4(7).
[The persons] in charge of [a] juvenile’s justice rehabilitation centre … [have the] duty … to [ensure that juveniles, whether] suspected, accused [or] sentenced to imprisonment [are able] to communicate with their families, [through] visit, … mail or other ways that should not disturb [the] facility’s regulation.
4. Deprivation of their leave.
Afghanistan, Law on Juvenile Rehabilitation and Training Centres, 2009, Articles 24 and 31.
Upon the approval of the preliminary proceedings judge and under his supervision or the supervision of a person designated by him, the detainee may receive visits from his spouse or extramarital partner or relatives, and at his request, from a physician and other persons subject to internal regulations of the custody. Some visits may be prohibited if they could detrimentally affect the conduct of the proceedings.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Procedure Code, 2003, Article 144(1).
The detainee or prisoner may … , if he or she is not in solitary confinement ordered by a judge, receive visits of … relatives or of persons close to him or her or of persons who may give him or her advice, with the rules of the respective detention facility or prison being respected.
Chile, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1906, as amended in 2007, Article 294.
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 116 of the Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence.
(1) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a convicted prisoner who has reached the age of 18 years shall be entitled to receive by prior appointment not less than one visit from relatives or friends each week of not less than 30 minutes duration.
2) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, a convicted prisoner who has not reached the age of 18 years shall be entitled to receive by prior appointment not less than two visits from relatives or friends each week of not less than 30 minutes in duration.
(3) Subject to the provisions of these Rules, an unconvicted prisoner shall be entitled to receive one visit per day from relatives or friends of not less than 15 minutes in duration on each of six days of the week, where practicable, but in any event, on not less than on each of three days of the week.
(b) any visit to which paragraph (1), (2) or (3) applies, to continue for a period in excess of the minimum period specified therein, where he or she is of the opinion that to so permit would, in relation to the prisoner’s welfare or rehabilitation, be beneficial.
(b) the Governor may restrict the number of persons who may be nominated by a prisoner in accordance with paragraph (5) (a) (i) but, in any case, the number of such persons may not be less than six.
(6) A prisoner who is entitled under this Rule to receive a visit may request the Governor to notify or cause to be notified those persons from whom the prisoner wishes to receive a visit, and the Governor shall do so, in so far as is practicable, and subject to the maintenance of good order and safe and secure custody.
(7) The Governor shall publish in the prison the days and times on which visits under this Rule may take place.
(8) A person, who is not a relative or friend, wishing to visit a prisoner shall make an application in writing to the Governor, detailing the purpose of the visit and such a visit may be permitted subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified by the Governor.
(e) any guidelines issued by the Director General.
(10) A prisoner shall not be under any obligation to receive a visit under paragraph (9).
Ireland, Prison Rules, 2007, Section 35.
(d) allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives and to be visited by them.
Detainees can receive visitors within the days and time provided by regulations of interior order, and subject to special authorization by the prison guardian. Visits can be authorized, unless the contrary is decided by the district attorney.
Rwanda, Prison Order, 1961, Article 50.
Sri Lanka, Prisons Ordinance, 1878, as amended to 2005, Article 94(1) and (2)(h).
(b) permit visits to … such person in such manner and at such time and place, as the Inspector-General of Police may from time to time direct.
(2) Any person who surrenders (hereinafter referred to as the “surrendee”) in connection with any offence under the Explosives Act, the Offensive Weapons Act, No. 18 of 1966, the Firearms Ordinance, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979 or under Chapter VI [offences against the State], Chapter VII [offences relating to the armed forces] or Chapter VIII of the Penal Code [offences against public tranquility] or under any emergency regulation, or through fear of terrorist activities to any police officer, or any member of the armed forces, or to any public officer or any other person or body of persons authorized by the President by order, shall be required to give a written statement to the officer or person authorized to the effect that he is surrend[er]ing voluntarily.
(8) A surrendee assigned to a Centre may with the permission of the officer in-charge of the Centre be entitled to meet his parents, or relations or guardian as the case may be, once in every two weeks.
Sri Lanka, Emergency Regulations, 2005, as amended to 5 August 2008, Sections 19(1) and (3) and 22(2),(4) and (8).
An alien who is being held in detention shall be given the opportunity to receive visits and have contact with persons outside the premises except if the visit or contact would hamper activities. concerning the detention in a particular case.
Sweden, Aliens Act, 2005, Chapter 11, Section 4.
1 The prison inmate has the right to receive visitors and to cultivate contacts with persons outside the institution. Contact with close relatives and friends shall be facilitated.
2 Contact may be monitored, and for the preservation of order and security in the penal institution it may be restricted or prohibited.
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 84(1) and (2).
Switzerland, Règlement sur le régime intérieur de la prison et le statut des personnes incarcérées, 1985, Article 37(1).
(1) Subject to paragraph (8), an unconvicted prisoner may send and receive as many letters and may receive as many visits as he wishes within such limits and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct, either generally or in a particular case.
(b) to receive a visit twice in every period of four weeks, but only once in every such period if the Secretary of State so directs.
(2A) A prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment to which an intermittent custody order relates shall be entitled to receive a visit only where the governor considers that desirable having regard to the extent to which he has been unable to meet with his friends and family in the periods during which he has been temporarily released on licence.
(3) The governor may allow a prisoner an additional letter or visit as a privilege under rule 8 or where necessary for his welfare or that of his family.
(4) The governor may allow a prisoner entitled to a visit to send and to receive a letter instead.
(5) The governor may defer the right of a prisoner to a visit until the expiration of any period of cellular confinement.
(6) The independent monitoring board may allow a prisoner an additional letter or visit in special circumstances, and may direct that a visit may extend beyond the normal duration.
(7) The Secretary of State may allow additional letters and visits in relation to any prisoner or class of prisoners.
(b) any other person, other than a relative or friend, except with the leave of the Secretary of State.
(9) Any letter or visit under the succeeding provisions of these Rules shall not be counted as a letter or visit for the purposes of this rule.
United Kingdom, Prison Rules, 1999 (consolidated January 2010), Section 35.
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Sections 50(5)(c)(i)–(vi), 86(2)(b) and (3), and 87(1) and (4).
The state does not dispute the right of the prisoners to receive family visits. The supplemental response made orally by respondent’s counsel indicates that suitable arrangements are already being made to transport relatives to visits with the prisoners, beginning on 9 March 2003 and continuing thereafter, from the cities of Jericho, Qalqiliya, and Ramallah, and that it is the state’s intention to expand the transportation to other places as well, to the extent that the situation in the field allows. It appears to us that, in the absence of a dispute regarding the existence of the right, there are no grounds – at least at this time – to issue an Order Nisi. However, we shall leave the petition pending, for the purpose of examining, in another three months, if the transportation arrangements were expanded to other places throughout the region. Also, we request the respondents to check if it is possible to allow visits in Ofer Detention Facility, which is located inside the region, other than by means of the transportation that is arranged by the International Red Cross.
Israel, High Court of Justice, Diriya case, Decision, 16 February 2003.
7. Considering all the aforesaid, I have not been convinced that in our matter there is cause to intervene in the decision of the competent officials, which established a general policy preventing the entry of Gaza residents into Israel for the purpose of prison visits. Permitting residents to enter Israel for this purpose is not among the basic humanitarian needs of Gaza residents which Israel is obliged to allow even today. What lies at the foundation of the policy implemented by the respondents are clearly considerations of state and security and it conforms to and effectively implements the cabinet decision made for these reasons. In this context, it would not be superfluous to stress that Israel’s control over the border crossings with the Gaza Strip does not provide a solution to all the security risks involved in continuing the visits in light of the expected increased traffic through the crossings as a result of holding the visits and in light of the crossings’ being a constant target for terrorist activities (compare, HCJ 7235/09 HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual v. GOC Southern Command, Sec. 2 (not yet published, 16 September 209) (hereinafter: the HaMoked case)). Thus, as far as the rights of Gaza residents are concerned, we have not found a reason to strike down the policy practiced by the respondents (for similar cases where the general policy regarding Gaza and West Bank residents was under review see and compare: HCJ 7960/04 Al Razi v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip (unpublished, 29 September 2005); HCJ 11120/05 Hamdan v. GOC Central Command, Sec. 16 (not yet published, 7 August 2008); HCJ 5539/05 ‘Atallah v. Minister of Defense, Sec. 10 (not yet published, 3 January 2008); the HaMoked case). At the same time, it must be recalled that according to the cabinet decision, the sanctions on the Gaza Strip are to be implemented while considering humanitarian aspects and in this context, the state noted that in exceptional cases, the competent officials do allow Gaza residents to enter Israel, for instance in order to receive medical treatment or for other exceptional humanitarian reasons. One cannot rule out that the respondents would allow visits to prison facilities if there are humanitarian reasons justifying the same. The anchor for this is found, as stated, in the cabinet decision.
8. The petitioners further claim that the policy practiced by the respondents infringes on the rights of prisoners who are residents of the Gaza Strip beyond necessity, among these are the right to family life and to live in dignity and they refer, in this context, inter alia to various provisions of international law which regulate the status of prisoners of war, inmates and detainees and their right to have contact with relatives and meet with them in the location where they are held. These claims must also be rejected. As for the provisions of international law to which the petitioners referred, we accept the state’s claim that these provisions do not deny a sovereign state the power to prevent foreigners, much less foreigners who are among the population of a hostile entity, from entering its territory even if such entry is meant for visiting relatives who are incarcerated by it. We also accept the state’s claim that the policy which is the subject matter of this petition directly concerns a restriction on Gaza residents’ entering Israel for the purpose of visiting relatives incarcerated here and not the prevention of the theoretical possibility of prisoners from the Gaza Strip receiving visitors in prison. In other words, inasmuch as the policy practiced by the respondents pursuant to the laws governing entry into Israel harms the prisoners, it is an indirect harm and the question is whether this indirect harm in and of itself justifies intervention in the respondents’ policy. Indeed, security prisoners incarcerated in Israel have human rights and these must not be infringed beyond necessity. However, we do not think that the alleged harm to the prisoners justifies a revocation of or change to the practiced policy. This, given the fact that we are concerned, as stated, with indirect harm which is the result of a legitimate policy that restricts entry from the Gaza Strip to Israel at the present time, a policy in which we have found no cause to intervene, as well as given the fact that the possibility to receive visits in prison, regarding each prisoner, is subject to the existence of certain conditions and the broad discretion given in this context to the competent officials at the Israel Prison Service (see Sec. 47(b) of the Prison Ordinance [new version] 5732-1971).
Israel, High Court of Justice, Anbar case, Judgment, 9 December 2009, §§ 6–8.
In its judgment in the Yesh Din case in 2010, concerning the matter of Palestinian detainees from the West Bank who are incarcerated in detention facilities situated in the territory of Israel, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated: “It is necessary to take into account also the geographic proximity of the region to Israel, and that holding the detainees in Israel does not automatically deny them family visits”.
Israel, High Court of Justice, Yesh Din case, Judgment, 28 March 2010, § 14.
When individuals are taken into custody for the purpose of criminal investigations, there is a potential for violations of their rights; as such, agencies in charge of detention must be conscious to uphold the rights of such individuals. The right to meet with family members … must be respected.
Nepal, Supreme Court, Forced Disappearances case, Order, 1 June 2007.
In the circumstances of this complaint the UPDF officers were in obvious breach of the above constitutional provision and the breach constituted additional violation of Cherop’s right to personal liberty.
Uganda, The Uganda Human Rights Commission at Kampala, Cherop case, Decision, 14 April 2004, §§ 24–25.
[There is an] obligation to display in a clearly visible place in every detention centre a separate placard showing the rights of the detainee … The placard must mention the following rights [including]: … (8) The right to receive visits, unless he is being held incommunicado by court order.
Chile, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 34.
(a) It maintains … article 150 of the Penal Code, but with penalties ranging from 61 days to 5 years of rigorous or ordinary imprisonment for persons who order or unduly prolong the incommunicado detention of a person deprived of liberty … or cause him to be detained arbitrarily in places other than those established by law.
Chile, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 55(b); see also § 116.
(c) Facilitate and encourage visits by and contact with his family at least once a month.
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, § 88(c).
In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Uganda stated that “where a person is restricted or detained under a law made for the purpose of a state of emergency”, the constitution of Uganda provides that “[t]he spouse or next of kin of or other person named by the person restricted or detained shall be informed of the restriction or detention and allowed access to the person within seventy two hours after the commencement of the restriction or detention”.
Uganda, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 14 February 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UGA/2003/1, 25 February 2003, § 109; § 256.
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on the situation of human rights in Kosovo, the UN General Assembly demanded that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia guarantee the families of persons detained and transferred from Kosovo to other parts of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and NGOs and international observers unimpeded and regular access to those who remained in detention.
UN General Assembly, Res. 54/183, 17 December 1999, § 9, voting record: 108-4-45-31.
Recalls its resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988 on the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, and in this context stresses that ensuring that any individual arrested or detained is promptly brought before a judge or other independent judicial officer in person and permitting prompt and regular medical care and legal counsel as well as visits by family members and independent monitoring mechanisms are effective measures for the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all States “[t]o ensure that, if they are arrested, detained or imprisoned, children … shall have the right to maintain contact with their family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances”.
In the Greek case in 1969, the European Commission of Human Rights concluded that “the extreme manner of separation of detainees from their families and in particular, the severe limitations, both practical and administrative, on the family visits” constituted a breach of Article 3 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
European Commission of Human Rights, Greek case, Report, 5 November 1969, Part B, Chapter IV(B)(VI), Section D, § 21.
In its admissibility decision in X. v. UK in 1982, the European Commission of Human Rights held that a general limitation of visiting facilities to relatives and close relatives of prisoners was reasonable and constituted no interference with the prisoners’ right to respect for private life according to Article 8 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. The test was whether the interference with the right to family life to which the detainee was also entitled went “beyond what would be normally accepted in the case of an ordinary detainee”. If the restrictions could not stand this test, the Commission had allowed the national authorities a very wide margin of appreciation in the limitation of family contacts on the basis of one of the grounds of the second paragraph of Article 8 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. The Commission accepted an Austrian practice according to which those who were serving a sentence of imprisonment of more than a year were on that ground alone denied visits from their children under age, for the protection of the morals of these minors. In addition to an examination by the Strasbourg authorities of whether the restrictions were reasonable in the particular case, they should see to it that the restriction was not imposed on the prisoner as a disguised sanction on his/her behaviour, which would constitute a breach of Article 18 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
European Commission of Human Rights, X. v. UK, Admissibility Decision, 8 October 1982, p. 115.
In 1993, with reference to a prison to which members of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement were transferred, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended that Peru allow relatives to visit prisoners.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the situation of human rights in Peru, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.83 Doc. 31, 12 March 1993, p. 29.
This has led to a practice in the SPLA where many people are detained for long periods. Between 1985 and 1991, many people remained detained without charges in the Ethiopian bushes of the SPLM/A. Detainees remained incommunicado, without visits from friends or relatives, no treatment and in most cases no trials.
Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 5.3, referring to SPLM/A, Penal and Disciplinary Laws, 4 July 1984, Section 73.

References: § 70
 § 9
 § 323
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 § 34
 § 55
 § 116
 § 88
 § 109
 § 256
 § 9
 § 21
 v. 
 v.