contribute to a more positive environment and improved relations between detainees and staff. • The weapons and restraints are stored and secured effectively, safely and in ways which minimise risk to officers and detainees, and are in keeping with international standards. For example, ensuring that there are procedures to dispose of out of date ammunition is important, as many weapons - including rubber bullets and chemical irritants - have an expiry date, after which they may present a higher injury risk or, conversely, may become less effective. • The firearm, less lethal weapon or restraint itself contains characteristics of concern, which may make its deployment more problematic, enhance the risk of injury and/or have implications for proportionality and necessity of its use. For example, there is wide variation in the amount of the active chemical irritant that sprays can contain, with certain commercially available formulations being many times stronger than others, meaning that inmates may be exposed to a higher degree of chemical irritant than is necessary. Studies have also found that some of the solvents and carriers used in the sprays are suspected carcinogens, are toxic and can cause corneal erosion and other side effects (Holopainen et al 2003, Rappert 2003). Such factors can help inform discussions around whether current policy and practice is appropriate, and may help in assessing medical implications, and in identifying less harmful options available to places of detention. Third, being able to independently document and research the presence and use of firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints in places of detention -and the suitability of any such equipment found - can help to further safeguard the independence of monitors, by ensuring that they are not reliant on information provided by the authorities in their enquiries. It may also help monitors to corroborate allegations of torture and ill-treatment made by detainees if, for example, a particular piece of equipment alleged to have been used in the incident is later found elsewhere on the premises, and monitors are able to match the features on the weapon or restraint to those recounted by the detainee. Documenting such weapons, including through using the tools and checklists provided here, is thus not only a way to help monitor the implementation of the Convention Against Torture or the Nelson Mandela Rules (including the requirement in Nelson Mandela Rule 36 that ‘discipline and order shall be maintained with no more restriction than is necessary’) but from a practical perspective also provides a relatively quick and easy way for monitors to capitalise upon, and add additional value to, the time they are already spending, and observations they are already making, in places of detention. may be more relevant in some places of detention than others (for example, in some facilities detention monitors may wish to follow up the storage of and access to firearms, whilst this may not be an issue in other facilities) and the Guide has been designed to allow monitors to easily refer to particular sections of interest, and to signpost to additional resources that deal with particular topics in more depth. Section 1 is concerned with absolute prohibitions contained within international norms, standards and statements made by international and regional monitoring bodies: namely, i) firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints that are deemed to be inappropriate for places of detention and ii) places of detention where weapons must not be used. Section 2 is concerned with firearms, less-lethal weapons and restraints that may have a role to play in places of detention, but that can be misused for torture and ill-treatment. It focuses, in turn, on: • Issues prior to use. What do international norms and standards say about how different weapons should be stored and kept? How and when should they be issued and carried? What should monitors look out for when visiting the armoury and when documenting weapons and ammunition located there, and elsewhere on the premises? When should regulations be established for different types of weapons? What training should be given on their use? • Standards and thresholds for use. What do international norms, standards and statements by detention monitoring bodies tell us about when it might be more or less appropriate to use different types of equipment, under what circumstances and with what limits? • Issues post-incident / after the use of a weapon: what action should be taken by officials after use of the weapon? What reporting should be done, when and how? What accountability mechanisms should be in place? Many of these elements are common to all weapons but where this is not the case, each of these sections is further sub-divided by weapon type. The structure of the Guide Throughout sections 1 and 2, a series of text boxes set out practical guidance and suggestions on how to monitor and document these issues and standards. These text boxes set out questions that monitors may wish to consider asking, observations they may wish to make, features they may want to record about the weapons in use, and records that they may wish to access should they wish to follow up on any of the points raised in the text. The intention is that readers can thus quickly identify how to follow an issue of concern by finding the relevant section of the text (but can also read cover to cover, should they so wish). This document can be read as a whole, or in sections, should monitors wish to follow up a particular area of concern in a particular place of detention. It is likely that certain sections of this document Section 3 builds on this foundation by providing a further practical tool to assist monitors working in this area. Specifically it provides a detachable pocket friendly guide or aide-memoire, suitable to 6