18 LAW-ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT IN CENTRAL ASIA AND THE SOUTH CAUCASUS Figure 2.9. Russian-manufactured grenades and stun grenades © Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation. devices, although current studies on the impact they may have in different situations and on different groups are lacking.40 Acoustic-hailing devices have been deployed as part of crowd-control operations in Georgia and Azerbaijan, although in the latter there were no reports that the relevant ‘alert tone’ function was activated. A white paper published by a US-based manufacturer of such devices, the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) Corporation, states that in Georgia ‘LRAD systems are mounted on police trucks to communicate and break up crowds’, in Kazakhstan ‘LRADS are used by the army for crowd control’ and in Turkmenistan ‘LRAD systems are deployed on military trucks for border security and protecting critical infrastructure’.41 Monitoring the use of these acoustic devices in crowd-control situations, especially the use of the alert tone to aid in the dispersal of protests, is of particular relevance to regions of Central Asia and the South Caucasus. In both regions, suppression of demonstrations and curbs on the freedom of assembly has occurred. Scrutiny should be given to the manufacture, trade and deployment of such devices by monitors as well as ‘producer’ states in order to ensure that misuse or rights violations do not occur. Further, specific guidelines for use, based on the results of independent scientific studies undertaken by appropriate medical, legal, police and other experts—and in line with international human-rights standards—should be put in place before the acquisition and deployment of such devices by individual forces. 40 See e.g. LRAD Corporation (2013), White Paper LRAD: Humanely Resolving Public Safety Situations and Saving Lives, <http://www.lradx.com/pdf/LRAD_whitepaper_Humanely_Resolving_Public_Safety_Situations.pdf>; and concerns about acoustic-hailing systems raised in 2010 legal proceedings in Canada, <http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Corp.-of-the-Canadian-Civil-Liberties-Assn.-v.Toronto-City-2010-ONSC-3525-First-decision-on-interlocutory-injunction.pdf>. 41 LRAD Corporation (note 40).