such policies. Recruiting staff from national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities is also a key component in effective implementation of non-discrimination policies in detention facilities. Moreover, staff must be trained on cross-cultural issues so that they are cognizant of and can effectively deal with the special needs of minority groups. Moreover, measures to improve access to justice for minorities in detention also include providing information on various non-governmental and paralegal services that can assist minority groups as well as information on access to legal aid in a language that minority groups understand. Providing written copies of prison rules and regulations in the language spoken by the minority groups is likewise important so as to prevent further discrimination and stigmatization in prisons for violating rules that they were not aware of. For protection of rights of religious minorities, a necessary measure is ensuring that religious minorities are able to observe the tenets of their religion, including having an access to a minister of their own religion, being able to undertake communal worship, being provided with special diets and being to fulfil special hygiene requirements. An equally important measure for protection of minorities is putting in place mechanisms for ongoing monitoring of discrimination based on ethnicity, race and descent. Monitoring and analysis needs to cover all aspects of daily life in detention, such as accommodation, vocational training programmes, education, disciplinary measures, recreation, libraries and religious chapels or parole decisions. Any notable racial or ethnical imbalances should be examined and any direct or indirect examination identified. VII. Discrimination in Judicial Proceedings and Sentencing Ethnic minorities also face discrimination in judicial proceedings and sentencing. In many countries, those from ethnic minority groups are given longer sentences than their nonminority counterparts for the same category of crime with comparable severity. This can be a result from both direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination can take the form of, for instance, a judge or member of the jury who, under influence of his or her own biases, imposes a harsher sentence on a minority. It can also result from the criminal justice system’s negligence in meeting the special needs of minority groups, such as failing to provide interpretation when the accused minority group member does not understand the language used during the trial and cannot effectively defend him or herself. Indirect discrimination, on the other hand, is harder to discern. It often arises from laws, policies or practices that appear neutral but in practice has a disparate impact upon members of minority groups. Mandatory sentencing laws, which impose a mandatory minimum sentence on certain types of crimes with little to no judicial discretion, are one such example. Although it may appear neutral, many mandatory sentencing laws have had a disparate impact on minority groups, as: (i) the offences selected to be subjected to mandatory minimum sentencing are likely to be those committed predominantly by the socially disadvantaged; and (ii) application of legislation and law enforcement policies into practice has led to significant racial and ethnic disparities in arrest and detention. The practice and effects of a policy is therefore the applicable test of whether indirect discrimination has occurred. 1. Measures to remove obstacles to fair judicial proceedings for minorities Page 10 of 11