Omega Research Foundation Illustrative examples of use of body-worn electric shock devices: According to ongoing research conducted by Omega, at present the United States of America (US) is the only OSCE participating State where body-worn electric shock devices are widely used by law enforcement officials. United States of America (US): Body-worn electric shock devices are authorised for use by various public bodies in the US. These include the Federal Bureau of Prisons13, the US Marshal’s Service14 and various sheriff’s offices. Furthermore, according to research undertaken by the Omega Research Foundation, at least 19 of the 51 U.S. state level correctional departments possess body-worn electric shock devices.15 The circumstances in which these devices are authorised for use varies, but common uses include to restrain persons in custody during transfers and court appearances. Other authorised uses include the restraint of persons in custody during extradition, to deter disruptive behaviour16 and for “routine crowd control situations”17. US-based media outlets have reported on several instances of inappropriate activation of body-worn electric shock devices during judicial proceedings. In 2015 a judge in Smith County, East Texas, ordered an electric shock belt to be activated on a defendant during a murder trial.18 The judge reportedly ordered for the shock to be administered when the defendant did not stand up at the judge’s request. In another case in 2014, a defendant screamed out three times and fell to the ground when a 50,000volt shock was administered via an electric shock device attached to his ankle.19 The judge reportedly ordered the device to be activated when the defendant, who was representing himself, verbally interrupted the judge. There have also been reported instances of body-worn electric shock devices activating accidentally. In a March 2012 trial, the electric shock belt being worn by the defendant activated unexpectedly when the defendant was not doing anything to warrant the use of force.20 The electric shock caused the defendant to scream out, collapse to the floor and lose control of his bladder. A representative of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said that the device in question is designed to “continuously 13 US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (2015) Program Statement: Escorted Trips, OPI: CPD/CSB, Number: 5538.07, December 10, 2015, https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5538_07.pdf accessed 3 May 2017. 14 United States Marshal’s Service (date unknown, post 2009) Policy Directives, http://www.usmarshals.gov/foia/Reading_Room_Information/Contracts/cso_forms_policy/less_than_lethal_d evices.pdf accessed 3 May 2017 15 See https://omegaresearchfoundation.org/case-studies/use-body-worn-electric-shock-us-state-prisons, accessed 2 May 2017. 16 See Kingman County Sheriff’s Office, Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 11.1, effective date: May 20, 2013. 17 Policy of State of Delaware Department of Corrections, Policy no. 8.30A, Chapter: 8 Administration, Subject: Electronic Immobilization Devices, Effective date: 15 January 2015. 18 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-texas-judge-idUSKCN0RQ0C720150926, accessed 2 May 2017. 19 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/former-md-judge-sentenced-for-ordering-electricalshock-for-defendant/2016/03/31/56e31728-f752-11e5-a3ce-f06b5ba21f33_story.html accessed 2 may 2017. 20 See State v. Collins, 1CA-CR12-0296, para. 7, available at https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2014/1%20CA-CR%2012-0296.pdf, accessed 2 May 2017. 7