associated ammunition, armoured vehicles and special weapons used in “anti-riot action”.110 However, “anti-riot action” is not defined in the legislation and this list does not include other law enforcement equipment such as mechanical restraints, electric shock stun weapons and batons. Amnesty International and Omega are not aware of any additional control lists and have contacted Chinese trade control officials asking for further information, but have not yet received a reply. China Xinxing Import and Export Corporation and China Jing An Import and Export Company – both of which are state-owned entities – are authorized to manage the export trade of police and prison equipment,111 although Norinco and Poly Technology also export some such equipment. Reports indicate that to export equipment on the control list, companies must first submit a proposal to the Chinese Government for an export licence; upon approval and signing of a sales contract, the company must obtain a customs permit before the export can be made legally.112 As neither the decisions to grant or deny licences, nor the process by which these decisions are made, are made public, it is impossible to assess whether the human rights records of recipients are taken into account. According to recent analysis by Chin-Hao Huang and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China’s arms export controls suffer from basic flaws, including processes not being formalized, a lack of transparency, and reluctance to enforce regulations. 113 There is no clear demarcation between the various agencies involved in the export control process. The bases for decisions are not published and it is difficult to trace responsibility back to specific officials or institutions. SIPRI concluded that: “While it is possible for analysts to identify the main actors, it is impossible to assess with certainty the role of informal politics and personal networks in the decision-making process.”114 According to Chin-Hao Huang, as of 2012 there had only been four or five cases where the authorities had imposed penalties for breaches of export control but the authorities have not provided details on any of these cases.115 Given the weaknesses observed in China’s export control regime for law enforcement equipment, it can be reliably assumed that this export control system is not one that can help protect human rights. Export Controls on law enforcEment equipment worldwide China’s export control system is not alone in its lack of effective controls on the transfer of law enforcement equipment. The international trade in equipment intended for law enforcement is relatively unregulated by most states, especially in comparison to controls on transfers of most types of conventional military weapons and munitions. Chemical irritants and associated launchers are often covered under strategic export controls, for example as agreed in the Wassenaar Arrangement of 41 arms-exporting states.116 However the trade in other security and law enforcement equipment is, in many cases, unregulated. The EU and the USA are two exceptions to this. The EU is the only regional grouping of states to have established controls on this trade. In 2006, following advocacy by Amnesty International and Omega over several years, the EU – through a European Commission (EC) Regulation - introduced the world’s first multilateral trade controls to prohibit 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.117 The EC Regulation covers the trade of 28 EU member states and introduced unprecedented, binding controls on a range of equipment not usually included on EU member states’ military or dual-use export control lists. The EC Regulation covers most – but not all – of the equipment mentioned in this report and therefore it provides a model which China could follow. The US Export Administration Act of 1979 and accompanying regulations require companies to obtain licences for the export of a range of mechanical restraint devices, electric shock stun equipment, tear gas cartridges, grenades and launchers, rubber and plastic projectiles, and other “crime control” and “detection items”. The categories of “execution equipment” and “certain types of equipment specially designed for torture” are also included in the US export control lists, but authorizations for these items are placed under a presumption of denial so in practice such items are 26 China’s Trade in Tools of Torture and Repression Amnesty International – Index: ASA 17/042/2014