38 Grasping the nettle: Ending Europe’s Trade in Execution and Torture Technology We recommend that direct contact electric shock guns, batons and shields specifically intended for law enforcement be added to Annex II of the Regulation and their trade be prohibited. Electric shock dart guns specifically intended for law enforcement purposes should be retained in Annex III and their trade controlled. Direct contact electric shock batons and guns specifically intended for personal protection should also be placed in Annex III of the Regulation and their trade controlled. Prisoner hoods The UN Committee against Torture has stated that blindfolding can constitute torture or other ill-treatment.148 The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has recommended that “blind-folding and hooding should be forbidden.”149 The CPT has noted that blindfolding, “will frequently amount to psychological ill-treatment”, and that the practice should be abolished.150 In 2011 the CPT stated, “Rules should expressly prohibit the blind-folding or hooding of persons who are in police custody, including during interviews.”151 The European Court of Human Rights has determined that blindfolding a prisoner constitutes cruel or inhuman treatment when used in combination with other interrogation or detention methods,152 and can constitute torture when used with other techniques.153 Above: “Mask for arresting”: image taken from promotional material distributed by Chinese company Jiangsu Anhua Police Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd at Milipol 2011, Paris, France. Amnesty International and Omega have uncovered evidence of the manufacture by non-EU companies of prisoner hoods designed to completely block vision by covering the entire prisoner’s head (including nose and mouth); and which are attached to plastic or metal handcuffs. These hoodhandcuff restraint systems have been promoted for use in law enforcement at EU arms exhibitions. For example, at Milipol 2011 (held in Paris, France, 18-21 October 2011), the Chinese company, Jiangsu Anhua Police Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd promoted the “WM-01 Mask – for arresting.” This device includes a cloth hood to fully enclose the face attached to handcuffs. In addition to concerns about the risk of asphyxiation, there are concerns that such systems restrict the prisoner’s movements and increase the risk of neck injury. Amnesty International and Omega Recommendation: There appears to be no legitimate law enforcement use for any form of individual hood or hood-handcuff restraint system, which could not be accomplished by other means. In July 2014, the Commission amended Annex II (controlled goods) to include, “Spit hoods: hoods, including hoods made of netting, comprising a cover of the mouth which prevents spitting,”154 however no mention was made of other prisoner hoods such as those previously found to be promoted at EU security fairs. We recommend that ‘prisoner hoods’ intended for law enforcement purposes, designed to enclose the head and block the vision of a human being, should be added to Annex II, and their trade prohibited. Prisoner control pliers A limited range of “niche” restraint devices for use by law enforcement officials have been marketed by European companies. For example the German Company, Clemen & Jung, has developed and promotes the “Detainee/Prisoner Control Pliers”. This device is intended to be used by an accompanying officer to hold and restrain a prisoner by their wrist and lead them or force them to move. The 148 Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Israel, Sept. 5, 1997, Committee Against Torture, 258, U.N. Doc. A/52/44;Report on Mexico produced by the Committee under article 20 of the convention, and reply from the government of Mexico: Mexico. 05/26/2003. U.N. Doc. CAT/C/75 (2003). 149 Civil and political rights, including the question of: torture and detention, report of the special rapporteur, Sir Nigel Rodley, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2001/62, U.N. ESCOR, 58th Sess., Annex 1, Agenda Item 11(a), (f), U.N. Doc. E/ CN.4/2002/76 (2001). [As cited in IRCT (2011) op.cit]. 150 Report to the Turkish government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment from 2 to 14 September 2001, 30-1. Available from: www.cpt.coe.int/documents/tur/2002-08inf-eng.htm. [As cited in IRCT (2011) op.cit]. 151 Report to the Spanish Government on the visit to Spain carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)CPT, from 19 September to 1 October 2007, CPT/Inf (2011) 11, p.21. 152 Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep. (ser. A) (1978); Ocalan v. Turkey, 37 Eur. Ct. H.R. 238, 222 (2003). [As cited in IRCT (2011) op.cit]. 153 Aksoy v. Turkey, 1996-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 2260 (1996); Aydin v. Turkey, 1997-VI Eur. H.R. Rep. 1866 (1997). [As cited in IRCT (2011) op.cit]. 154 European Commission,. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 775/2014 of 16 July 2014. Amnesty International May 2015 Index: EUR 01/1632/2015