On launched kinetic impact weapons, the UNODC/UNOHCHR Resource Book notes that; ‘although projectiles may be used for the purpose of incapacitating an individual, they should only ever be used when the situation meets the criteria for the potential use of lethal force, that is when there is an imminent threat to life or limb’. The current UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer has noted that certain types of kinetic impact projectiles ‘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). Section 2.2.6: Chemical Restraint The CPT (2017: 3) note that ‘if recourse is had to chemical restraint, only approved, well-established and short-acting drugs should be used. The side-effects that medication may have on a particular patient need to be constantly borne in mind’. The UN 1991 Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care further clarify the circumstances in which chemical restraint may be considered, stating that: • ‘Treatment may… be given to any patient without the patient’s informed consent if a qualified mental health practitioner authorized by law determines that it is urgently necessary in order to prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or to other persons. Such treatment shall not be prolonged beyond the period that is strictly necessary for this purpose’ (Principle 11.8). • ‘Every patient shall have the right to be treated… with the least restrictive or intrusive treatment appropriate to the patient’s health needs and the need to protect the physical safety of others’ (Principle 9). • Medication ‘shall never be administered as a punishment or for the convenience of others’ (Principle 10). • The Principles also note that ‘all medication shall be prescribed by a mental health practitioner authorized by law and shall be recorded in the patient’s records’ (please see Section 2.3 for further details). Checklist for detention monitors: The Use of Chemical Restraints. 18 1) Are there regulations for the use of Chemical Restraints? 2) Do they provide that treatment may only be given without consent if ‘urgently necessary in order to prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or to other persons?’ 3) What records are kept around the use of chemical restraints? Section 2.2.7: Restraints The application of restraints: The Nelson Mandela Rules (Rule 47.2) state that restraints can only be used when authorised by law, and only in a specific, narrow set of circumstances, namely: • As a precaution against escape during a transfer, provided that they are removed when the prisoner appears before a judicial or administrative authority; • By order of the prison director, if other methods of control fail, in order to prevent a prisoner from injuring himself or herself or others or from damaging property; in such instances, the director shall immediately alert the physician or other qualified health-care professionals and report to the higher administrative authority. • Use of restraints in these specific, limited circumstances is not automatically justified and will not necessarily be appropriate. Instead, they should only be used if ‘no lesser form of control would be effective to address the risks posed by unrestricted movement’ – i.e. when there are no effective alternatives (Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 48). • The Nelson Mandela Rules also provide that no more restraint shall be applied than is necessary: ‘the method of restraint shall be the least intrusive method that is necessary and reasonably available to control the prisoner’s movement, based on the level and nature of the risks posed’ (Rule 48). For example, handcuffs and leg cuffs should not be used if the application of handcuffs alone would be sufficient. Also relevant here is the manner in which restraints are applied, with some techniques being more intrusive and painful than others. For example, the UNODC/OHCHR Resource book recommends that ‘hog-tying, that is tying someone’s hands and legs together at the back, should not be used given the unnecessary discomfort and suffering it causes, as well as the risk of asphyxiation it poses. Hog-tying may amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment’. Overtightening of handcuffs has also been raised as a concern, and classified as ‘misuse’ by the CPT (2008: paragraph 10). • Moreover, restraints shall only be applied ‘for the time period required...(being) removed as soon as possible after the risks posed by unrestricted movement are no longer present’ (Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 48). The CPT (1992: 53) notes that ‘in those rare cases when resort to instruments of physical restraint is required, the prisoner concerned should be kept under constant and adequate supervision. Further, instruments of restraint should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity; they should never be applied, or their application prolonged, as a punishment’ – something reinforced by the Nelson Mandela Rules, which state that ‘instruments of restraint shall never be applied as a sanction for disciplinary offences’ (Rule 43.2). Similar standards apply in other places of detention, with the UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care stating that ‘physical restraint… shall not be employed except in accordance with the