Introduction Reports by a wide range of international, regional and national monitors have expressed concern that firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints are misused, including for the purposes of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, in a range of countries worldwide. Concerns have been documented by a wife range of bodies including the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, or SPT (2016), the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (henceforth referred to as the Special Rapporteur on Torture) (2017), the UN Committee Against Torture (2008), the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture, or CPT (2010), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2013) and the South African Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (2010). This Guide is intended to help detention monitors document this important area by: • Collating standards around the use of firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints in places of detention. The focus is on mass manufactured weapons and restraints, as opposed to more rudimentary, improvised devices that may also be used for torture and ill-treatment. • Providing a useful, practical guide on how to document these weapons in places of detention, what to ask, and key observations to be made – applicable to a wide range of detention contexts, including prisons, healthcare settings and other places of detention. • Collating other useful resources for detention monitors. Why document firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints in places of detention? Whilst almost anything can be used for the purposes of torture and ill-treatment, monitoring and documenting the firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints that can be used for such purposes can assist detention monitors in providing protection to persons deprived of their liberty in several ways. First, some equipment has been deemed to have no use other than torture and ill-treatment and thus has no role in places of detention – and monitors have a unique role to play in recognising and documenting such equipment, where it exists. This is vital, as the presence of such equipment (discussed in Section 1) amounts to a heightened risk of detainees in the facility in question being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. It is seemingly incompatible with Article 2.1 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or UN CAT, which states that ‘each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction’ and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules) (Rule 47), which prohibits the ‘use of chains, irons or other instruments of restraint which are inherently degrading or painful’. The importance of this issue has been further underscored by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) which has called upon all States to ‘take appropriate effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export, import and use of equipment that have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (United Nations General Assembly, 2011, henceforth referred to as the UNGA Torture Resolution). Detention monitors can help States to fulfill this resolution by documenting when such equipment is used (or otherwise found) in places of detention, and recommending its prohibition, in line with international norms and standards. Furthermore, in cases where this equipment has been imported into the country in question, documenting its presence (and, as we shall see in Sections 1 and 2, any markings on the equipment) can help contribute to the UNGA Resolution’s focus on prohibiting the international trade in such items. Second, whilst some equipment has no use other than torture or illtreatment, other equipment (for example, handcuffs and batons) can have a legitimate function in places of detention, but can also easily be used for torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer (2017: point 52), has noted that ‘weapons that might not be inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading may nonetheless carry significant risks of being used in a manner contrary to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thus placing particular emphasis on the requirement of precautions’. A former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (2005a) also noted that the ‘vast majority’ of cases seen by his office ‘have involved the misuse of those instruments, legitimate in appropriate circumstances, to inflict torture’, and considered that; ‘the obligation to prevent torture in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment necessarily includes the enactment of measures to stop the trade in instruments that can easily be used to inflict torture and ill-treatment’. He further noted that there is a role for torture prevention monitors in examining ‘the situation of trade in instruments used for torture in the course of his/her country visits and transmit communications to Governments concerning allegations of trade in security and law enforcement technology easily used for torture’ (Special Rapporteur on Torture, 2005a). At the regional level, Article 14 of the Robben Island Guidelines for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture in Africa (henceforth Robben Island Guidelines) notes that ‘states should prohibit and prevent the use, production and trade of equipment or substances designed to inflict torture or ill-treatment and the abuse of any other equipment or substance to these ends’ (emphasis added). Paying attention to the misuse of legitimate law enforcement techniques for torture and ill-treatment, including through using the methodologies and checklists outlined in this guide, has the potential to bring many benefits, including being able to recognise whether: • The equipment is being issued, carried and used appropriately, and only in suitable circumstances. This can help to minimise inappropriate use and enhance accountability where misuse has occurred, as well as 5