A/HRC/57/46 Mandela Rules further provides that States should provide useful work or vocational training opportunities that can maintain or increase the ability of incarcerated individuals to earn an honest living after release. It is of vital importance that these programmes are culturally, religiously, gender- and age-appropriate42 and also accessible to persons with physical and intellectual disabilities. 17. Once released, formerly incarcerated individuals are entitled to all human rights stipulated in international human rights and labour laws. Of particular relevance is nondiscrimination with regard to access to education, training and decent work. The reality though, is that many formerly incarcerated individuals find themselves unemployed for extended periods of time because of discrimination, including its intersecting dimensions, owing to their criminal convictions. Provision of unemployment or wider social security benefits is particularly important in this regard. Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, States are to pay special attention to prisoners and detainees in implementing social security.43 The ILO Employment Promotion and Protection against Employment Convention, 1988 (No. 168) additionally provides that vulnerable categories of individuals, including released prisoners seeking work, are to receive social benefits.44 In addition, the Special Rapporteur regards it as necessary to secure access to social housing or affordable private housing, as many formerly incarcerated individuals face discrimination in that area and often end up in a situation of homelessness, which in turn puts them at risk of contemporary forms of slavery and other human rights abuses. 45 18. Another emerging principle is the “right to be forgotten”. One relevant aspect of this is the deletion or expungement of criminal records after certain periods of time. In the context of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights held that the storage of personal information, including criminal records, comes under the right to private life, which might be considered to be breached when such storage is indiscriminate and open-ended without clear and sufficient safeguards. 46 In addition, deletion of information regarding one’s criminal prosecution and conviction on the Internet is a pertinent issue in the digital age. In a landmark case, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in considering key norms such as the right to private life and protection of personal data under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ruled that search engine operators must comply with requests to remove links that lead to personal data that are inadequate, irrelevant or excessive.47 It remains to be seen how these principles will evolve globally over time, bearing in mind other equally important issues, such as the seriousness of offences committed, freedom of expression, public interest and human rights due diligence in the relevant sectors. IV. State practice A. Labour during incarceration 19. A wide range of labour activities are performed by incarcerated individuals globally, such as maintenance of correctional facilities and other support services (e.g. cleaning, 42 43 44 45 46 47 6 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 31 (2005), paras. 5, 26 and 38; Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 24 (2019), para. 95; United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), rules 37 and 42; United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty (the Havana Rules), section IV.E; A/HRC/51/27, paras. 16 and 49; A/HRC/55/52, paras. 77 and 96; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC29/22, 30 May 2022, paras. 328–330. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 19 (2007), para. 31. Art. 26. A/HRC/54/30, para. 32. M.M. v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 24029/07, Judgment, 13 November 2012, paras. 187 and 199. See also CATT v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 43514/15, Judgment, 24 January 2019. Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Costeja González, Case No. C-131/12, Judgment, 13 May 2014. GE.24-12247