PART I.  SETTING THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT international treaties, States assume obligations to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights.13 In addition to their obligations deriving from international treaties, States are also bound by those international human rights standards that have the status of customary international law. Other international instruments also provide important guidance on the use of force and firearms. The two most important are the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (United Nations Code of Conduct) and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms for Law Enforcement Officials (Basic Principles/BPUFF).14 Those international declarations, guidelines and principles, although not legally binding, can contribute to the understanding, implementation and development of international human rights law. The United Nations Code of Conduct, adopted by the General Assembly in 1979, states in article 3 that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. The Basic Principles were adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1990 and, on 18 December 1990, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 45/166, welcoming the Basic Principles and inviting States to “respect them and to take them into account within the framework of their national legislation and practice”. The Basic Principles set out the core parameters to determine the lawfulness of use of force by law enforcement personnel and establish standards for accountability and review. These instruments, and in particular their provisions on the use of force as they relate to the right to life and physical integrity in particular—article 3 of the Code of Conduct and principle 9 of the Basic Principles—are relied upon as authoritative by regional and national courts.15, 16 In addition to the international instruments developed under the aegis of the United Nations, a range of instruments has been developed at the regional level, including binding and non-binding instruments. 13  See, for example, United Nations Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 31 [80], The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13. 14  Other relevant standards include the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power; Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions; United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”); United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (“Havana Rules”); United Nations Model Strategies and Practical Measures on the Elimination of Violence against Women in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice; Istanbul Protocol; Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; United Nations Model Strategies and Practical Measures on the Elimination of Violence against Children in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice; Revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR Revised or Nelson Mandela Rules); United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems. For more information, visit: https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/English_book.pdf 15  See, for example, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v.Venezuela, 5 July 2005, IACtHR Ser. C No. 150, paras. 68-69; Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, 4 July 2007, IACtHR Ser. C. No. 166, para. 84; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Kazingachire et al. v. Zimbabwe, Comm. 295/04, 12 October 2013, para. 110. 16  The United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, and other experts, have noted that provisions of the Code of Conduct and the Basic Principles are “rigorous applications of legal rules that States have otherwise assumed under customary or conventional international law. Among these are the instruments’ core provisions on the use of force. Thus, the substance of article 3 of the Code of Conduct and principle 9 of the Basic Principles reflects binding international law”. See for example, Interim report on the worldwide situation in regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 5 September 2006, (A/61/311), para. 35; Jelena Pejic, “Conflict classification and the law applicable to detention and the use of force”, chapter 4 in E. Wilmshurst (ed.), International Law and the Classification of Conflicts, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 110; OHCHR, Human Rights and Law Enforcement, A Manual on Human Rights Training for Law Enforcement Officials, 2017, page 87. 7