PART I.  SETTING THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT When resorting to force, law enforcement officials should use the minimum necessary force required to meet the law enforcement objective. Using force that goes beyond the minimum required would be considered unnecessary use of force and thus in violation of a State’s obligations under international law. Furthermore, the principle of necessity also includes a temporal component, meaning that force can only be lawfully used until the law enforcement objective is accomplished or can be accomplished. Once the objective has been met or it becomes clear that it cannot be met anymore, the use of force becomes unnecessary and should cease. Law enforcement officials should never use force to intimidate or to extract information nor should they use force against an alleged offender who is already under control, or in police custody—unless in self-defence or defence of others against an imminent threat. When the person subjected to the force has been restrained or is incapable of resisting, additional use of force would be unnecessary, and therefore unlawful. Such use of force may amount to assault and battery, or even torture or ill-treatment. EXAMPLES OF LEGALITY, NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY IN DOMESTIC LAW In his report reviewing domestic legislation on the use of force by law enforcement officials,a the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that the emphasis in the laws was often on law enforcement objectives but not on the question of whether the person concerned poses a threat, which obviously should constitute the key element for deciding on the appropriate, hence proportional, type of force. He further provides examples of domestic law referring to the principles of necessity and proportionality. An example of a clear reference to the principle of necessity would be: “[a] police officer shall always attempt to use non-violent means first and force may only be employed when non-violent means are ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result”. Note that references in the law that force “not greater than that required” or as “little force as necessary shall be used” need to be accompanied by provisions on proportionality, as otherwise it would allow the fleeing thief, posing no immediate danger, to be shot with apparent impunity, which would contradict international standards. An example of a clear reference to the principle of proportionality is “[t]he force used shall be proportional to the objective to be achieved, the seriousness of the offence, and the resistance of the person against whom it is necessary, and only to the extent necessary while adhering to the provisions of the law and Standing Orders”. Provisions such as “use all reasonable means necessary”, and “use such means as are necessary to effect the arrest”, if not narrowed by accompanying requirements of proportionality and necessity, allow uncontrolled (and unlawful) discretion by the law enforcement official. a See Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/HRC/26/36), 1 April 2014. Proportionality The principle of proportionality serves to assess the balance between the harm caused through the use of force and the benefits thereby achieved. Principle 5 of the Basic Principles provides: “Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved”. 17