Checklist for detention monitors: The use of firearms. 1) Do policies and procedures governing the use of firearms clearly specify the circumstances under which staff are permitted to carry firearms? 2) Do policies and procedures around the use of firearms in places of detention state that they should only be used in situations where there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury - i.e in order to protect life - and only if less harmful measures are inadequate? Do they specify that, when the threshold for their use has been met, they should be used in a ‘manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm’? 3) Do policies and procedures specify that warnings should be given, unless this is clearly inappropriate (given the specific circumstances detailed above)? Section 2.2.2: Less lethal weapons: General provisions General provisions around the use of less lethal force, including less lethal weapons, state that they can only be used in a limited number of circumstances, for example to maintain security and order, to prevent escape and in self-defence or in the defence of others. However, in order to be justifiable, when force is used in such circumstances it must be exceptional, strictly necessary, proportionate to the circumstances faced, and a last resort (as well as lawful, which we have discussed above, and accountable, which we discuss in the next section). For example: • The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (Article 3) states that officials may use force ‘only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty’. • The Basic Principles (Principle 16) state that ‘law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention, shall not use force, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution, or when personal safety is threatened’. • The Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (Principle 23) state that officials ‘shall not use force and other coercive means, save exceptionally and proportionally, in serious, urgent and necessary cases as a last resort after having previously exhausted all other options, and for the time and to the extent strictly necessary in order to ensure security, internal order, the protection of the fundamental rights of persons deprived of liberty, the personnel, or the visitors’. • The European Prison Rules (Rule 64) state that ‘prison staff shall not use force against prisoners except in self-defence or in cases of attempted escape or active or passive physical resistance to a lawful order and always as a last resort. The amount of force used shall be the minimum necessary and shall be imposed for the shortest necessary time’. • The Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (Guideline 25) note that States should ‘limit the use of force against persons in police custody or pre-trial detention to circumstances in which force is strictly necessary for, and proportionate to, the need 16 for maintenance of security and order within the detention facility, or when personal safety is threatened’. • The UNODC/OHCHR Resource book (2017: 79) states that, ‘whenever possible, a warning should be given prior to the use of an instrument of force, if appropriate, and the subject should be allowed to comply before using the weapon’. Using force on someone who has been restrained, handcuffed or otherwise under control, is of particular concern. The UNODC/ OHCHR Resource book (2017: 17) states that ‘Law enforcement officials should never… use force against an alleged offender who is already under control, or in police custody—unless in selfdefence or defence of others against an imminent threat. When the person subjected to the force has been restrained or is incapable of resisting, additional use of force would be unnecessary, and therefore unlawful. Such use of force may amount to assault and battery, or even torture or ill-treatment’. Similarly, as a former UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (2005b; paragraph 38 - 40 has noted, ‘the principle of proportionality, which assesses the lawful use of force to fall outside the scope of CIDT, only applies in situations in which the person concerned is still in a position to use force in turn against a law enforcement official or a third person. As soon as that person ceases to be in a position to resist… (e.g. hors de combat, otherwise unable to resist or flee a premises, is arrested and handcuffed, detained in a police van or cell, etc.), the proportionality test ceases to be applicable and the use of physical or mental coercion is no longer permitted. If such coercion results in severe pain or suffering inflicted to achieve a certain purpose, it must even be considered as torture’. In addition to these general provisions, monitoring bodies have developed more detailed guidance for certain types of less lethal weapons, indicating the circumstances in which their use may, or may not, be appropriate. Section 2.2.3: Chemical Irritants On Chemical Irritants, the UN SPT has expressed “serious reservations about the use of irritant gases in confined spaces, as it may entail health risks and cause unnecessary suffering” (SPT 2012:128). The CPT has stated that “tear gas is a potentially dangerous substance and there can be no justification for its use against a prisoner in