Chinese equipment was subsequently used during the November 2011 elections, which ended in violence, with at least 33 dead and 83 injured.127 In one of the most serious incidents, Congolese riot police were stationed in Chinese-manufactured anti-riot vehicles near N’djili airport. According to Human Rights Watch, they fired tear gas to keep demonstrators at bay, but violence erupted when a convoy arrived to pick up President Kabila. Video footage backed by eyewitness statements show the Republican Guard rushing out of the airport firing live ammunition directly into the crowd, while the riot police continued to fire tear gas. At least one demonstrator was killed and several were injured.128 In 2009, China exported riot control weapons, including tear gas and rubber projectiles, to Madagascar at a time when the country was experiencing severe political unrest. Frequent demonstrations against President Ravalomanana were being met with unnecessary and excessive use of force by police.129 According to a cable sent by the US embassy and subsequently published by Wikileaks, the imported equipment arrived in Madagascar from South Africa on board President Ravalomanana’s private jet, bypassing customs. The leaked cable goes on to observe that “the security forces have not received proper training on the use of this equipment for its intended purpose”, and that since the arrival of the equipment, the police “who are usually hesitant to initiate confrontation” moved “to directly confront opposition protesters and disperse any large gatherings with tear gas and stun grenades.”130 In the aftermath of the import, Amnesty International documented numerous violations of human rights related to policing of public assemblies with riot control equipment.131 For example, a 20-year-old student told Amnesty International that on 20 June 2009 security forces had approached him as he was walking across a car park to join a demonstration. The police sprayed him with tear gas and fired rubber bullets at him, fracturing his forearm. He said that he had not reported the incident as he felt that it might be dangerous for him and his family.132 In all the above cases, it can be reasonably assumed that the Chinese authorities did not conduct a thorough assessment taking into account foreseeable factors of whether there was a substantial risk at the time that the law enforcement weapons and other equipment would be used by the potential recipients to commit or facilitate serious violations of human rights before they allowed the export of the equipment by Chinese companies to proceed. 28 China’s Trade in Tools of Torture and Repression Amnesty International – Index: ASA 17/042/2014