a confined space such as a cell… prison officers should be able to perform their duties quite effectively without having recourse to this…means of coercion… Only exceptional circumstances can justify the use of tear gas inside a place of detention – but never in a confined space such as a cell – for control purposes, and such exceptional use should be surrounded by appropriate safeguards’ (CPT 2009: 92). The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer has noted that certain types of chemical irritants ‘carry significant risks of being used in a manner contrary to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (2017: 53). UNODC/OHCHR Resource book further notes that law enforcement officials should ‘never use riot control agents against persons who are restrained or confined to a place where they have no escape routes from the chemical... (and) never use riot control agents in confined spaces or expose the same targets to riot control agents several times during a short time period’. In addition to these important considerations, other considerations of note include; the type and strength of the chemical irritant (which may be of relevance for ensuring that the minimum amount of force is used, and for the effects experienced by the subject), the solvent in which it is carried (an important observation, as some solvents have been found to be toxic and / or are suspected carcinogens), and the way in which it is delivered. For example, there are important distinctions to be made between chemical irritants that are dispersed by handheld sprays, by larger ‘back-pack’ style systems, by fixed position sprayers, and those that may be fired, in cartridges or grenades, from specialist launchers. Each type of chemical irritant dispenser poses distinct human rights risks (for example, firing tear gas projectiles may present a risk of head injury from direct impact of the projectile or grenade), as well as risks posed from the chemical irritants themselves, that should be carefully managed. Section 2.2.4: Electric-shock weapons The UN Committee Against Torture (2013) has stated that ‘electrical discharge weapons should be used exclusively in extreme limited situations where there is a real and immediate threat to life or risk of serious injury, as a substitute for lethal weapons’. Elsewhere the CPT (2010) has stated that ‘the use of electrical discharge weapons should be limited to situations where there is a real and immediate threat to life or risk of serious injury. Recourse to such weapons for the sole purpose of securing compliance with an order is inadmissible. Furthermore, recourse to such weapons should only be authorised when other less coercive methods (negotiation and persuasion, manual control techniques, etc) have failed or are impracticable and where it is the only possible alternative to the use of a method presenting a greater risk of injury or death’. Important distinctions should also be made between projectile electric-shock weapons, that deliver an electric-shock at a distance by means of projectiles (usually wires and barbs) and contact electricshock weapons, such as stun guns, stun batons and shock shields. Whilst the former have the potential to incapacitate, the latter must be pressed directly up against an individual and work solely through pain compliance. As such, it has been argued that they are prone to abuse and have less utility than projectile electric-shock weapons – and therefore that their use should be prohibited in places of detention (ISS and Omega Research Foundation 2016). The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer (2017: point 54), has noted the issues around the use of both types of electricshock weapons, in particular the ‘risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment associated with the extra-custodial use of electrical discharge weapons delivering electric shocks through projectiles (for example, tasers), or upon direct physical contact’. Section 2.2.5: Kinetic Impact Weapons On batons, as noted above, the CPT (1999) has noted that ‘preferably, custodial staff should not carry batons at all. If, nevertheless, it is considered indispensable for them to do so, the CPT recommends that the batons be hidden from view’. The UNODC/UNOHCHR Resource Book (2017: 81) notes that ‘where a law enforcement official has hit someone (with a baton) repeatedly, or whilst on the ground, this may amount to excessive force and should be investigated as such’. Checklist for detention monitors: The use of less lethal weapons. 1) Do regulations provide that force may only be used in a limited number of circumstances, and that it must be exceptional, strictly necessary, proportionate to the circumstances faced, and a last resort? Are there indications that force is used in keeping with these standards? (For more details on use of force reporting, see the next section). 2) Are irritant gases available for use in places of detention and, if so, what kinds? Do the regulations allow the use of irritant gases in confined spaces such as cells, and are there indications that this has occurred? 3) Does the detention facility have fixed position chemical irritant dispensers in place? If so, in what circumstances are these authorised, and used? 4) Are electric-shock weapons authorised for use in places of detention? Is the use of electric-shock weapons limited, in theory and in practice, to situations where there is a real and immediate threat to life or risk of serious injury? 5) Are kinetic impact projectile weapons authorised for use in places of detention? Is the use of these weapons limited, in theory and in practice, to situations ‘that meet the criteria for the potential use of lethal force, that is when there is an imminent threat to life or limb?’ 6) Are batons authorised for use in places of detention? 7) What kinds of weapons, if any, are routinely carried by staff? 17