73 Part 3 arrest before a court. Such information should, therefore, be conveyed promptly. However, it does not have to be explained in its entirety at the very moment of the arrest. The content and promptness of the information conveyed should be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are sufficient. The suspects were questioned and detailed allegations were put to them about specific terrorism-related offences within a short time of being detained. Considering that only a few hours passed between arrest and interview, there is no breach of the requirement for promptness. Therefore, there is no violation of their freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention. * This case study is taken from the facts in Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. UK, and the analysis of the question on the findings of the ECtHR in that case.73 3.2 The Use of Force during Arrest Law enforcement officials should, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force.74 Force may, however, be used during an arrest of a suspect if he or she attempts to resist, escape or threatens the life of others. In most cases the “force” used is merely verbal – informing the suspect that he or she is under arrest – or taking hold of him or her by the arm as a clear signal that he or she is no longer free to leave, or even handcuffing him or her. In extreme cases, the use of force may be serious, even lethal. 73 74 Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. UK, op. cit., note 70. Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, “Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials”, Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990, <http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/i2bpuff.htm>.