EN_CPT_AR.book Page 36 Monday, October 25, 2010 5:14 PM CPT General Report 2009-2010 69. The CPT considers that the use of electric discharge weapons should be subject to the principles of necessity, subsidiarity, proportionality, advance warning (where feasible) and precaution. These principles entail, inter alia, that public officials to whom such weapons are issued must receive adequate training in their use. As regards more specifically EDW capable of discharging projectiles, the criteria governing their use should be directly inspired by those applicable to firearms. 70. In the CPT’s view, the use of EDW should be limited to situations where there is a real and immediate threat to life or risk of serious injury. Recourse to such weapons for the sole purpose of securing compliance with an order is inadmissible. Furthermore, recourse to such weapons should only be authorised when other less coercive methods (negotiation and persuasion, manual control techniques, etc) have failed or are impracticable and where it is the only possible alternative to the use of a method presenting a greater risk of injury or death. Application of these principles to specific situations 71. Applying these principles to specific situations, the CPT has, for example, come out clearly against the issuing of EDW to members of units responsible for deportation operations vis-à-vis immigration detainees. Similarly, the Committee has expressed strong reservations about the use of electric discharge weapons in prison (and a fortiori closed psychiatric) settings. Only very exceptional circumstances (e.g. a hostage-taking situation) might justify the resort to EDW in such a secure setting, and this subject to the strict condition that the weapons concerned are used only by specially trained staff. There should be no question of any form of EDW being standard issue for staff working in direct contact with persons held in prisons or any other place of deprivation of liberty. 72. Electrical discharge weapons are increasingly being used when effecting arrests, and there have been well-publicised examples of their misuse in this context (e.g. the repeated administration of electric shocks to persons lying on the ground). Clearly, the resort to EDW in such situations must be strictly circumscribed. The guidance found by the CPT in some countries, to the effect that these weapons may be used when law enforcement officials are facing violence – or a threat of violence – of such a level that they would need to use force to protect themselves or others, is so broad as to leave the door open to a disproportionate response. If EDW gradually become the weapon of choice whenever faced with a recalcitrant attitude at the time of arrest, this could have a profoundly negative effect on the public’s perception of law enforcement officials. 36