INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS 25 other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, its origin, destination and forms’, in which he stated ‘the importance of establishing monitoring mechanisms to control respect for trade and production regulations, be they national or international’.61 The study focused on a wide range of law-enforcement equipment, not just those specifically designed for torture or ill-treatment, such as ‘thumb cuffs, shackles, chains and leg irons’, but also Electro-shock weapons, such as electro-shock batons, stun guns, stun shields and Tasers, electro-shock stun belts and kinetic impact devices; and chemical control substances, such as tear gas and pepper sprays. The Special Rapporteur’s attention was drawn . . . to the fact that new equipment and technologies continue to be developed and that particular attention should be paid to anticipating such developments in undertaking this study.62 A number of international soft-law instruments state the importance of regulating specific equipment. All of these instruments call for controls on equipment that has no practical use other than for purposes of torture or other ill-treatment.63 The Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (the Robben Island Guidelines) goes further, stating that ‘states should prohibit and prevent the use, production and trade of equipment or substances designed to inflict torture or ill-treatment and the abuse of any other equipment or substance to these ends’.64 This final sentence, while not explicitly calling for control of the trade in ‘other equipment or substances’ that may be used in torture or ill-treatment, recognizes that there may be a need to focus on a wider range of equipment than those devices specifically designed to commit torture or ill-treatment, and therefore could apply to a wider range of law-enforcement equipment. International bodies and national courts have also made recommendations about the use of specific devices. For example, the Committee Against Torture (CAT) has stated that the use of body-worn electric-shock devices could give rise to a breach of Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture.65 CAT has 61 Van Boven, T., Civil and Political Rights, including the Question of Torture and Detention: Study on the Situation of Trade in and Production of Equipment which is Specifically Designed to Inflict Torture or other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, its Origin, Destination and Forms, submitted by Theo Van Boven, Special Rapporteur on Torture, pursuant to Resolution 2002/38 of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2003/69, <http://antitorture.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/P2-Study-Onthe-situation-of-trade-in-and-production-of-equipment-which-is-specifically-designed-to-inflicttorture..pdf>.
62
Van Boven (note 61), para. 6, p. 6

63 See e.g. United Nations, General Assembly, Third Committee Resolution, submitted by Denmark, 10 Nov. 2011, para. 25, which ‘[c]alls upon all States to take appropriate effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export, import and use of equipment that have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. 64
Resolution on Guidelines and Measures for the Prohibition and Prevention of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Africa (Robben Island Guidelines), <http://www. achpr.org/files/instruments/robben-island-guidelines/achpr_instr_guide_rig_2008_eng.pdf>, para. 14.
65
A body-worn electric-shock device is designed to be attached to a prisoner, usually as a belt or a cuff. A guard then has a remote control that can activate the device, causing electric shocks to incapacitate the prisoner.