PART II.  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES be taken to ensure that the operation is conducted in a manner that does not imply an undue risk to the life or safety of third persons. Calculating incidental loss of life or injury caused to uninvolved persons when planning an operation is never acceptable in a law enforcement context.125 It is good practice to invite a human rights adviser to attend planning meetings and advise on what tactical options should or should not be deployed in order to operate in full compliance with human rights obligations. This planning process in such cases is very similar to the one described above, and should answer the questions listed before. In this regard, planning should: • Start with collecting and analysing relevant information about the incident as well as the expected developments, in order to make a risk assessment. • Identify relevant stakeholders and develop communication and coordination mechanisms with them, and develop scenarios (both worst case and realistic) about what could happen (also called “contingency planning��). • Formulate the law enforcement objective(s) and how to achieve them in a realistic manner while being prepared for different possible scenarios and the steps that need to be taken in each case. • Answer questions such as: what are the threats and which are the tactical options, the number of staff to be deployed, with what equipment and in what dress? • Focus on how to de-escalate in order to prevent the use of force and if force has to be used make sure it is the minimum necessary and always proportionate to the threat. • Be flexible, so that it can be adapted when needed during the course of events, which requires continuous data collection and monitoring, prior to and during the operation. Use of force during planned operations will be subject to a stricter level of scrutiny than would be the case with unplanned events. All plans should be recorded, including the considerations of the options rejected or progressed together with the reasons why such conclusions were drawn, and by whom.126 Prior to the operation, and in line with the tactical plan, those involved will need to be briefed about the objectives, possible scenarios, and what they should and should not do. The briefing must be realistic and use neutral language, since when law enforcement officials are told to expect violence there is a risk they are more likely to approach the situation prepared to use force (rather than prevent it), which can lead to undesired outcomes. There must be a clear operational command structure in place defining who is authorized to take decisions on specific operational aspects, and thereby also identifying those responsible. In every operation there needs to be a lead, responsible for accurate record keeping, information gathering, investigation, interviewing, seizures, arrests/arrest processing, court processing, case review and debriefs. 125  The notion of lawful incidental damage is one that is particular to the conduct of hostilities paradigm and inapplicable to law enforcement operations. 126  See for example PSNI Manual of Policy, Procedure and Guidance on Conflict Management, chapter 9: Police use of firearms, para. 9. 107. 49