7. Conclusions and recommendations I. Conclusions This report demonstrates the need for further scrutiny about the types of equipment being used by police and security personnel. The widespread, credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment, the violent suppression of protests and other authoritarian practices that can be found in a significant number of the states being assessed in this report, combined with the increasing variety of law-enforcement technologies being manufactured and transferred from outside of the region, show that there is a need for more indepth monitoring of the trade and use of such devices. A current weakness in studies of the region in relation to the use of lawenforcement technologies is the amount of information available showing the extent to which such devices are being misused. This is clearly not because such technologies are always used appropriately. Indeed, the available reports, both of monitoring bodies, media and civil society, suggest the opposite. However, the lack of consistent monitoring and documentation of the systems used, combined with the widespread impunity enjoyed by many police and security officials, show that there is a need for further study of the types of law-enforcement systems being deployed in the region. It is, however, possible to make some preliminary recommendations in relation to establishing controls over the trade in, and deployment of, such devices. There is a clear need for security personnel to be given the tools to allow them a graduated response to situations requiring force. The use of firearms should be a last resort and needs to be guided by clear instructions on when it would be permitted. All instances of the use of force must adhere to the principles set out in international standards such as the UN BPUFF, the UN SMR and the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Noncustodial Measures for Women Offenders (Bangkok Rules). Every piece of equipment (including more rudimentary devices such as handcuffs) used by security forces should be independently evaluated against a clear set of use-of-force standards.128 The use of less-lethal weapons, in particular launched kinetic-impact devices and projectile electric-shock devices, should be assessed by the same standards attributed to firearms. Any individual using force should be aware of, and work to, the ‘PLAN principles’, under which every incidence of force used must be proportionate, lawful, accountable and necessary.129 128 E.g. OSCE guidelines on the use of handcuffs for the Armenian police state: ‘Handcuffs as a special means for active protection can be very useful but if not applied correctly and locked, the offender monitored and the handcuffs released as soon as possible, long-term injury can be caused. Handcuffs that are incorrectly applied are the wrong type, intended for short-term use, or left on once the offender has arrived at a secure location may result in breaches of human rights, as their intended purpose has not been followed.’ Armenian Police (note 100), p. 23. 129 Osse, A. (2006), Understanding Policing: A Resource for Human Rights Activists, Amnesty International (Netherlands), <https://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/book_1_0.pdf>, p. 128.