PART II.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES 3.4.  Planning for operations Effective planning minimizes the likelihood that force, in particular lethal force, will need to be used and maximizes the potential to protect the lives and rights of all those involved; if force has to be used it is more likely to be strictly necessary under the circumstances and proportionate to the threat posed.122 The requirement for planning should be at the heart of any law enforcement action or operation. The main question to be answered in this context is the following: “what is the objective of the operation and what are the available options for achieving that objective?” It is good practice to have a set of questions to guide any planning.123 Such set of questions should include: • • • • • • • • What is the law enforcement issue at hand? What is the situation on the ground? What is the legitimate law enforcement objective? What are the risks involved in this situation? Do I have the authority to act, and what does this authority imply? Do I have all needed skills/equipment/possibility to act? How do I approach the situation/what is my plan? What alternative approaches are available? A human rights-based approach to law enforcement must incorporate human rights considerations at the planning stage of any operation, including mitigation measures where any risks to human rights are identified. Orders and briefings should include human rights issues, and clear directives should be issued on how human rights should be protected in the specific situation.124 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVISERS Some States employ human rights advisers to assist commanders, as well as rank-and-file officers, to comply with human rights law. For example, in Northern Ireland, law enforcement is assisted by advisers who are lawyers with expertise in human rights, and who work on all aspects of policing, ranging from information processing, legacy investigations to counter-terrorism and maintenance of public order. The human rights adviser is available to assist all officers, attends planning meetings and can be present at the command centre for major operations. The lawyer’s role is advisory only, and the responsibility for the decisions remains with the relevant police official. Similarly, in Chile, the Carabineros entered into an agreement with the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), to allow delegates from the NHRI to oversee and be present in police stations and buses when the police arrested students demonstrating in Santiago. In Poland the police have employed human rights advisers since 2008; there is one in each region (17 in total) and one adviser at the central level.a a See OSCE, Office of the Secretary General Strategic Police Matters Unit. Regional workshop on Democratic Policing: Workshop Report, Minsk, Belarus, 16-17 September 2009: http://polis-cp.osce.org/library/f/3662/2854/OSCE-AUS-RPT-3662-EN-2854.pdf 122  See INDECOM Jamaica (2014), p. 13: “in view of preventing loss of life or causing serious injury whenever it is possible operations should be carefully planned, and it must be recorded who are participating and with what equipment, what powers to be deployed, which need to be properly authorized and commanders need to ensure that use of force policies are complied with.” 123  Adang, O.M.J, Learning to Deal with Potentially Dangerous Situations: a Situation-Oriented Approach, 2012; M.R. Haberfeld, C.A. Clarke and D.L. Sheehan (eds.), Police Organization and Training: Innovations in Research and Practice, Springer, New York, 2012. 124  See OHCHR, Human Rights and Law Enforcement, A Manual on Human Rights Training for Law Enforcement Officials, 2017, chapter 19 (Law Enforcement and Human Rights in Command, Management and Organization), p. 443. 47