Briefing Paper: Use of Tools of Torture in OSCE participating States INTRODUCTION The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is made up of 57 participating States from Europe, North America and Central Asia. In spite of its social, economic and cultural diversity, OSCE participating States face several common challenges, one of which is to protect and preserve individuals’ rights. Law enforcement officials’1 power to use force derives from the duty of the State to maintain public order, protect the human rights of persons within its jurisdiction, and uphold the rule of law. These powers are often exercised in difficult circumstances and it is sometimes necessary to use physical means of force. However, the authority to use force brings with it the responsibility to use it appropriately. International Human Rights Law stipulates that any use of force must be legal, necessary, proportionate and accountable.2 The right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment) is considered an absolute and non-derogable right, meaning that the use of torture can never be justified and the absolute prohibition cannot be limited in any way, for any reason.3 As part of their obligation to prevent against any excessive use of force, including the commission of acts of torture and other ill-treatment, states must ensure that law enforcement officials are equipped with a range of means which allow them to respond to situations appropriately.4 However, there are widespread reports of human rights violations perpetrated by law enforcement officials misusing equipment which could have a legitimate law enforcement use if employed correctly (e.g. ‘tear gas’ or hand-held batons). To provide a recent example, reports emerged in May 2017 alleging that a man was beaten and shot with an electric shock projectile weapon while handcuffed while in police custody in Wrocław, Poland in 2016, leading to his death.5 It is incumbent on exporting states to ensure companies under their jurisdiction do not transfer law enforcement equipment for use in states where there is a pattern of such equipment being used to systematically violate human rights. Omega has also documented the emergence of a second category of technologies which have no practical use other than for the purposes of torture and other ill-treatment (e.g. electric shock batons, 1 According to the United Nations (UN) Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, “The term ‘law enforcement officials’, includes all officers of the law, whether appointed or elected, who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest or detention.” For the purposes of this briefing, the term will be understood to include prison staff, who are mandated to use force in certain limited circumstances in the performance of their duties - see Rule 82 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). 2 See Annual Report of Christof Heyns, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, 2014, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/36; Amnesty International, Use of Force: Guidelines for Implementation of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, 2015. These draw extensively from several international human rights instruments, particularly the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. 3 Please note that in addition to their OSCE Human Dimension Commitments, all 57 OSCE participating States have ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 4 United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (UN BPUFF), Principle 2. 5 http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/308118,Police-chief-dismissed-over-Taser-death accessed 13 June 2017. 4