A/68/295 Disciplinary action and punishment 57. The Special Rapporteur observes that the Rules lack provisions and guidance on how discipline and order should be maintained in order to strike a balance between maintaining security and respecting human dignity. In this context, it is essential that the Rules provide for an obligation for prison authorities to use disciplinary measures on an exceptional basis and only when the use of mediation and other dissuasive methods to resolve disputes proves to be inadequate to maintain proper order. It is also important that punishment always be proportional to the offence for which it is established; doing otherwise would be tantamount to improperly making the nature of the deprivation of liberty harsher. Any act that may amount to a crime should be dealt with by the authorities of justice administration and not by penitentiary or prison staff. All punishments shall be duly recorded. 58. Thus, in Rule 33 it should be made explicit that the use of force and instruments of restraint (including the use of non-lethal or incapacitating weapons) should be a last resort that may be used only in exceptional circumstances, when strictly necessary as specified by law and in a manner that complies with the principle of proportionality and for the shortest possible time (see the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, principles 4, 9 and 16). Rule 33 (b), which currently permits the use of restraints (including sedatives, neuroleptics or other drugs) on medical grounds, should be abolished. The Special Rapporteur has previously declared that there can be no therapeutic justification for the prolonged use of restraints and that such use may constitute ill-treatment (see A/63/175, paras. 40, 47 and 48, and A/HRC/22/53, para. 63). The use of physical restraints that are inherently inhuman, degrading or painful (such as electro-shock stun belts and restraint chairs) has humiliating and degrading effects and has been condemned and prohibited by both the Special Rapporteur and the Committee against Torture as methods of restraining those in custody (see A/55/44, para. 180 (c)). The Special Rapporteur is of the view that Rule 31 should be revised to incorporate a prohibition on punishment by suspension or restriction of water or food, as it violates international standards set out in the report of WHO on the social determinants of health and the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (principle XI). Lack of provisions governing searches 59. The Special Rapporteur has received numerous allegations about searches performed arbitrarily in places of deprivation of liberty with a view to punish or humiliate inmates or destroy their belongings. In this respect, the Rules must integrate principles governing searches that meet the criteria of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality (see Human Rights Committee general comment No. 16, para. 8). The Rules should place an obligation on prison authorities to ensure that searches are conducted in private by trained personnel of the same sex as the inmate, that alternate screening methods, such as scans, are developed to replace strip searches and body cavity searches and that searches are conducted by suitably trained personnel, including, where appropriate, health professionals from outside the detention facility, following authorization from the competent authorities (see the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners, rule 20, and the World Medical Association Statement on Body Searches of Prisoners (1993, as revised in 2005)). 13-42285 15/23