the causes of death, the report of which should be made accessible to the nearest relative’. Similarly, the UNODC/OHCHR Resource book notes that ‘in cases of death and serious injury or other grave consequences resulting from the use of force…it is not sufficient to report internally to one’s line manager…An independent review process is necessary, i.e. independent from the law enforcement official or unit involved in the incident’ and, as noted above, there is an important role for independent agencies in conducting broader data analysis on use of force incidents. Whilst assessing the qualities needed for such a process to be independent and effective is covered in detail elsewhere (for example, the University of Essex Human Rights Centre and Penal Reform International 2017, and the UNODC and OHCHR Resource Book, 2017) and is outside the scope of this paper, it nevertheless points to a final important consideration for monitoring bodies to assess when documenting the use of firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints in places of detention. Checklist for detention monitors: Post-Incident Procedures and accountability mechanisms. • Are people on whom force is used given the right to be immediately examined by a medical doctor, out of the hearing (and ideally, sight) of nonmedical staff? Are the results of the examination, and the doctor’s conclusions, formally recorded? Are they made available to the prisoner? • Is a record kept any time force, including mechanical and chemical restraints, are used? Ideally this register should also indicate not just whether force was used but further details about the incident, including the type of force and restraint used, and how long it was applied for. • Are these records reviewed internally by the supervising officer? • Is there an independent review process in place for cases of death, serious injury or other grave consequences resulting from the use of force? • Do individuals affected by use of force and firearms have access to an independent process, including judicial mechanisms where appropriate? • Is there analysis of use of force data more broadly, in order to establish trends and patterns and to develop appropriate interventions where necessary? Following up on Section 2: Equipment that should be monitored in places of detention. It should be remembered that, whilst worthy of note, the mere presence of equipment with potentially legitimate uses in places in detention (such as batons, or handcuffs) may not necessarily indicate cause for concern, depending on the circumstances, in the same way that the presence of prohibited equipment would do. Hence monitors may wish to use the checklists given in Part 2 in order to examine the safeguards prior to use, at the point of use, and following use of the weapon—including the regulations and policies surrounding the issue and use of the equipment—and indications of how it is used in practice, including any indications of misuse. Documenting weapons and restraints in places of detention brings a number of benefits, but is perhaps particularly important in cases where there are concerns that the equipment is insufficiently regulated, is being used inappropriately including for torture or ill-treatment, has serious medical or psychological effects, or presents concern in other ways. In such instances, a number of options are available: 1) Documenting any markings and logos (for example, company names and logos), colours, and serial numbers, if any, that are present on the equipment itself, or on its packaging. This may help provide additional confirmation of: • Whether the equipment was locally manufactured or imported (and, if so, from where). Depending on the type of equipment and the country of origin, the export may also be in breach of national or regional trade control regulations (for example, of European Union trade control regulations), or may highlight regulatory gaps. • Identifying the manufacturer can also allow you to check their guidelines for use of the product—which may identify, for example, minimum ranges for use and provide product warnings in certain circumstances—and to ascertain whether these are reflected in policy and practice around the weapon (for example, whether they are being used at distances closer than the manufacturer recommends). • Serial numbers (which are unique to the weapon in question) can help identify when, and where, the equipment was manufactured and transferred. In cases where, for example, equipment is being systematically misused, identifying the supply routes, and the States and corporate actors involved, may help to provide additional angles to enhance accountability, and to prevent further transfers in the future. 2) Documenting dates, as many weapons—including rubber bullets and chemical irritants—have an expiry date, after which they may present a higher injury risk (in the case of some rubber bullets) or, conversely, may become less effective. 21