A/72/178 severity of the physical, mental and emotional injury, pain or suffering likely to be inflicted. 72 61. Finally, it has become apparent that an international response is required with respect to the human rights issues raised by “less lethal” weapons, with a view to bringing about detailed, practical guidance on the human rights -compatible use of such weapons. Accordingly, in their joint report issued in 2016 on the management of peaceful protest, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions recommended that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights “convene an expert group to examine the a pplication of the international human rights framework to less-lethal weapons and unmanned systems for law enforcement purposes, including with a focus on their use in the context of assemblies” (A/HRC/31/66, para. 67 (i)). VI. Conclusions 62. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur examined whether and in which circumstances the extra-custodial use of force by State agents amounts to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Special Rapporteur’s substantive conclusions can be summarized as follows: (a) Today, the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is universally recognized as a core principle of international law that is binding upon all States, irrespective of their treaty obligations. The prohibition of torture is also one of the few norms of customary international law that is universally recognized as having attained peremptory status (jus cogens); (b) The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment not only protects persons deprived of their liberty, but also applies in extra-custodial settings; (c) Any extra-custodial use of force that does not pursue a lawful purpose (legality), or that is unnecessary for the achievement of a lawful purpose (necessity), or that inflicts excessive harm compared to the purpose pursued (proportionality) contradicts established international legal principles governing the use of force by law enforcement officials and amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Moreover, failure to take all precautions practically possible in the planning, preparation and conduct of law enforcement operations with a view to avoiding the unnecessary, excessive or otherwise unlawful use of force contravenes the State’s positive obligation to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within its jurisdiction; (d) Any extra-custodial use of force that is intended to inflict pain or suffering on a “powerless” person (that is, a person who is under direct physical or equivalent control and is unable to escape or resist) as a vehicle for achieving a particular purpose amounts to an aggravated form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of considerations of lawful purpose, necessity and proportionality and irrespective of what else, if __________________ 72 17-12326 See Defence Scientific Advisory Council Subcommittee on the Medical Implications of LessLethal Weapons, “Statement on the medical implications of use of the Taser X26 and M26 less lethal systems on children and vulnerable adults”, amended, 27 January 2012; Abi Dymond, “Police use of taser in England and Wales, 2004-2014”, unpublished PhD thesis, 2016; and Aaron Sussman, “Shocking the conscience: what police tasers and weapon technology reveal about excessive force law”, UCLA Law Review, vol. 59 (2012), p. 1,344. 21/24