5. External training and equipment contributions Reform and capacity-building programmes in the Caucasus and Central Asia have been undertaken by a number of external actors. The OSCE has attempted to undertake the reform of law-enforcement structures since 2001, with mixed success. Oppressive states have tended to show a more conciliatory approach towards external organizations’ attempts to reform lawenforcement or correctional services, in order to divert attention from systematic human rights violations. For example, following the Andijan massacre, Uzbekistan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, aiming to divert calls for an international investigation into the massacre, signed a memorandum of understanding with the OSCE project co-ordinator in Uzbekistan to provide a range of capacity-building activities (although not mentioning human rights).98 In relation to the provision of equipment, multilateral bodies such as the OSCE have appeared to avoid providing crowd-control equipment other than devices such as police batons and shields. In Kyrgyzstan there were rumours that the OSCE was ‘supplying the police with non-lethal weaponry, such as rubber bullets’, which ‘galvanised the NGO community, concerned that the OSCE was simply making it easier for the government to crush antigovernment protests’.99 The OSCE denied that they had supplied such systems and gave assurances that none would be provided in the future. However, this example demonstrates the delicate balance that must be made between contributing to the reform of police and security apparatus and not aiding repressive practices. In addition to the implementation of robust trade controls, another area where international organizations may have a significant impact is in the development of standards and guidelines for law-enforcement bodies on the use of certain devices. The international market for law-enforcement equipment is such that officials will always be able to access technologies should they so wish. International organizations should make it clear that certain equipment or techniques have no place in any law-enforcement or correctional scenarios, and that those that are authorized for use must be subject to rigorous evaluation prior to deployment. Furthermore, those using such devices must have undergone comprehensive training, including on topics of proportionality, the medical implications of devices, and human rights and fundamental freedoms. An example of the development of standards in the region was the new useof-force guidelines developed for the Armenian Police with assistance from the OSCE. These guidelines take into account the range of instruments that govern police use of force and state: 98 Lewis, D., Reassessing the Role of OSCE Police Assistance Programming in Central Asia, Open Society Foundation Occasional Paper Series no. 4 (Apr. 2011), p. 22. 99 Lewis (note 98), p. 31.