PART I.  SETTING THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ensure that staff are properly trained, equipped and prepared to conduct their work professionally and in accordance with international human rights norms and standards. The country and thematic reports of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions highlight specific situations where concerns as well as positive developments regarding the use of firearms have been observed and recommendations made.58 Principle 9 of the BPUFF states that a law enforcement official shall not use firearms against persons except: • In self-defence or in defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury59 • To prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life • To arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and • Only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives The official commentary to article 3 of the United Nations Code of Conduct states that “firearms should not be used except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the offender.” Hence, firearms should not be used to effect an arrest or prevent an escape, or to disperse or control a crowd, unless the individuals targeted by such use of force pose an imminent or continuous threat of death or serious injury. It follows that as soon as there is no longer such a threat to life or limb, firearms cannot be lawfully used. As firearms should only be used to protect human life or against serious injury, it follows that a threat merely against property cannot justify using firearms against a person. Firearms should not be used to prevent a theft or to safeguard other interests such as property (including public property, such as government buildings), unless any of these incidents are accompanied by an 58  In one country, the Special Rapporteur raised the concern that the threshold for the use of force was excessively low in domestic legislation (“when reasonably justifiable for the defence of property”, “to prevent criminal offences”) and pointed out that the Policing Manual on the use of force did not include directives defining the circumstances, conditions, degree and manner in which force may be used. The immunity that was afforded to law enforcement officers for the deprivation of life when using force in cases of riots, insurrections or mutinies, were raised as an issue (A/HRC/29/37/Add.2). In another country, concerns were raised regarding the high number of deaths resulting from excessive use of force in the context of demonstrations and arrests. The Special Rapporteur found that the legal framework was insufficiently precise, allowing for overly broad interpretations of the conditions in which lethal force was permissible. One of the recommendations was to ensure that the concepts of “necessity” and “proportionality” in domestic law were amended to align them with international standards (A/HRC/23/47/ Add.2). Elsewhere, the Special Rapporteur attributed the high numbers of deaths from the excessive use of force (for example during demonstrations and arrests) on legislation that was too permissive of lethal use of force and that hampered accountability. He also specifically addressed the issue of so-called “fake encounters”, where law enforcement officials allegedly staged shoot-out scenes to hide the fact that they had unlawfully killed suspects. The Special Rapporteur was particularly concerned about the lack of meaningful investigations in such allegations. He commended the country for adopting guidelines requiring, inter alia, that police officers record information about an encounter, that such cases should be investigated by an independent agency, that a magisterial inquiry must be undertaken in instances where deaths have occurred, and that disciplinary action should be taken against delinquent police officers (A/HRC/23/47/Add.1). In yet another country, the Special Rapporteur noted positive developments in achieving structural and operational reforms to enhance the police force capacity to respect effectively to calls. He particularly highlighted the drawing up of mandatory guidelines on the use of force, firearms and detention procedures for the police, and recommended that these should be implemented through official training, equipment and a monitoring system (A/HRC/23/47/Add.3). Finally, in a country where police killings as a consequence of excessive use of force was prevalent, the Special Rapporteur identified the following six contributing factors: (1) official sanctioning of targeted killings of suspects, (2) dysfunctional criminal justice system, (3) non-existence of internal and external accountability mechanisms, (4) use-of-force laws contradictory and overly permissive, (5) witness intimidation, and (6) lack of training, discipline and professionalism within the police (A/HRC/23/47/Add.4). 59  The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has suggested that “Any such force may also only be used in response to an imminent or immediate threat – a matter of seconds, not hours.” A/HRC/26/36, 1 April 2014, para. 59. 21