A/72/178 necessarily make it cruel, inhuman or degrading, it may do so in conjunction with the gravity of its effects (for example, certain kinetic impact projectiles) or with the circumstances in which it is being used (for example, tear gas in closed confinements). 56. Furthermore, certain “less lethal” weapons may have foreseeable long -term or other effects, which must be considered when assessing the proportionality of their use, such as the high risk of serious head injury arising when persons collapse uncontrollably after being targeted with electrical discharge weapons or the humiliating effect of the use of dyes or malodorants. 68 57. Finally, any extra-custodial use of an otherwise permissible weapon, irrespective of its lethal or less lethal design, in order to intentionally and purposefully inflict pain or suffering on a powerless person, always amounts to an aggravated form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture. D. Duty to regulate and review 58. States must take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment from occurring within their jurisdiction. 69 In the present context, this means that States must regulate the extra-custodial use of force and establish other adequate mechanisms to ensure that State agents are trained, equipped and instructed so as to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in law enforcement operations. 70 59. Given that States must prevent the use of inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading weapons and of lawful weapons in a manner contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, they necessarily have a derived duty, irrespective of treaty obligations, to regulate and review the development, acquisition, trade and use of weapons. Most notably, this includes an obligation to determine whether the employment of a weapon would, in some or all circumstances, violate the absolute pro hibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 71 This duty is particularly significant in the light of the constant emergence and deployment of new technologies for use in law enforcement operations, including “less lethal”, remotely controlled and increasingly autonomous systems. 60. The duty to conduct legal reviews applies to weapons in the broadest sense, as well as the manner in which they are intended or reasonably expected to be used. A meaningful weapons review involves experts from various disciplines, given that it requires an examination of all relevant information regarding the weapon, such as its technical description, its performance and reliability, its environmental and medical impact and, most importantly for the present context, the nature and __________________ 68 69 70 71 20/24 On the use of dyes or malodorants, see Physicians for Human Rights and International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, “Lethal in disguise”, pp. 57 -61. Convention against Torture, arts. 2 and 16. See Association for the Prevention of Torture and Centre for Justice and Intern ational Law, Torture in International Law. See also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Robben Island Guidelines, 2002, art. 14; and Stuart Casey-Maslen, Neil Corney and Abi Dymond-Bass, “The review of weapons under international humanitarian law and human rights law”, in Casey-Maslen (ed.), Weapons Under International Human Rights Law, pp. 424-425. See also, mutatis mutandis, the customary obligation codified in article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, on means and methods of warfare, and, in this context, ICRC, “A guide to the legal review of new weapons, means and methods of warfare: measures to implement article 36 of Additional Protocol I of 1977”, January 2006. 17-12326