It is also noteworthy that only one of the four officers who took part in this incident noted in their report that the woman had said that she had her period. We can only imagine how distressing it must be to have to remove your underwear when you have your period in front of four strangers, which seems to me an important factor for explaining the woman’s response to the order to undress. “It is hard to imagine how four officers restraining and forcibly undressing a distressed woman in order to dress her in a gown ‘for her own protection’ could possibly be seen to be conducive to the woman’s wellbeing or to the development of a healing relationship with staff. The fact that the woman had arrived at the ISU straight from the Reception Office, likely to be disorientated and anxious, must have made the entire experience even more distressing. As ISU cells are on camera, the entire scene would have been watched by staff in the control room, in complete disregard of the woman’s dignity and right to privacy. The Chief Ombudsman, Peter Boshier, also noted the unsuitable conditions in the ISU (which was still known as an ARU at the time), and expressed his ongoing concern about the use of in-cell cameras in unscreened toilet areas: “Rooms had limited natural light and little fresh air. Prisoners were constantly monitored by CCTV, even when using the toilet, which was unscreened. The camera feed was displayed on TV monitors in the ARU office and Master Control. A consequence of Corrections’ policy for toilets in ARU cells to be unscreened is that prison staff (and others) have the ability to observe prisoners, either directly or through camera footage, undertaking their ablutions or in various stages of undress. I consider that this amounts to degrading treatment or punishment for the purpose of the Convention Against Torture”.44 44 Office of the Ombudsman, Report on an unannounced inspection of Arohata Upper Prison – 21 March 2018, at p 14. 43