International law also prohibits the production, stockpiling and transfer of certain categories of conventional weapons – such as anti-personnel land mines and cluster munitions – which are deemed intrinsically indiscriminate and inhumane.141 THE CONTROL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT It is increasingly recognized that these principles – the prohibition of intrinsically inhumane weapons and the obligation on states to adopt strict risk assessments based on human rights criteria on the transfer of other types of weapon – also apply to law enforcement equipment. In relation to intrinsically inhumane equipment, the UN General Assembly has repeatedly called upon all states “to take appropriate effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export, import and use of equipment that have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.142 Certain jurisdictions – notably the EU – have already adopted a regulation on the transfer of certain law enforcement equipment, prohibiting the international trade in equipment “which has no practical use other than for the purposes of capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”; and to control the trade in a range of law enforcement and security equipment misused for such violations of human rights.143 Given the risks to human rights posed by arms and equipment used for law enforcement and state’s extra-territorial responsibilities under international law, Amnesty International and Omega believe that all states must have in place robust regulatory mechanisms. These should include a licensing system for transfers that safeguard against potential abuse of such equipment. This licensing system should include a legal obligation to conduct a thorough risk assessment of the possible harmful consequences of a transfer of such equipment and strict human rights criteria for the authorization and use of such equipment. An exporting state should verify end use undertakings by the importing states prior to issuing any export license and, at least in sensitive cases, require a delivery verification certificate for exports to guard against diversion. All states should be transparent and report regularly to parliament and the general public on their exports and imports of arms and law enforcement equipment, so these activities are open to scrutiny. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY Over the past decade there has been increasing recognition of the responsibility of companies to respect human rights. This responsibility has been elaborated in the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework for Business and Human Rights and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The UN Guiding Principles confirm that companies have a responsibility to respect all human rights, and a corresponding need to take concrete action to discharge this responsibility. This requires taking adequate measures to prevent, mitigate and – where necessary – to redress human rights abuses connected to their business operations. According to the Guiding Principles, “The responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations, and does not diminish those obligations. And it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights.”144 Any company selling arms or law enforcement equipment to end users known to be committing serious human rights violations would risk being in breach of these standards. Moreover, it is possible that the company that sells the equipment could be complicit in any subsequent violation of human rights in which the equipment was used. An International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Panel of Experts has examined the question of corporate complicity in human rights violations in some depth and clarified how legal liability, both civil and criminal, could arise for such complicity.145 The ICJ panel considered that there could be a sufficiently close link in law if the company’s conduct enabled, exacerbated or facilitated the abuse, and the company knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the abuse would occur. A company could enable, exacerbate or facilitate abuse through, among other things, the provision of goods or services. 30 China’s Trade in Tools of Torture and Repression Amnesty International – Index: ASA 17/042/2014