Checklist for detention monitors: providing training on the use of force. 1) 2) • Realistic scenarios? Are firearms, less-lethal weapons and restraints issued only to staff who have been trained in their use, and who have passed appropriate proficiency standards? • Alternatives to the use of force and firearms, such as preventive and defusing techniques to assist in the management of violent offenders? Does the training given to staff include the following elements: • Cultural awareness and sensitivity to diversity, including gender awareness and awareness of child-related issues? • Technical proficiency in the use of force technique in question? • Legal, ethical and human rights framework, including the absolute prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? • Security and safety, including the concept of dynamic security, personal safety and stress management? Section 2.2: Policies, Procedures and Thresholds for Use Section 2.2.1: Firearms The Basic Principles (Principles 9 – 11 and Principle 16) state, in part, that ‘law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives’. They further note that ‘intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life’ and that, when used, they shall be used ‘in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm’ – although the issue of harm to whom is not specified (but has been broadly interpreted to include harm to third persons, see Amnesty International 2015). They note that warnings should be given, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, ‘unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident’. As the UNODC/OHCHR Resource book (2017: 98) notes, though, warnings should not be interpreted to include warning shots. Indeed, it notes that ‘warning shots should be avoided as they carry serious risk of causing damage or injury. Indeed, it is good practice to prohibit warning shots altogether’. 3) Do staff undergo regular refresher training? 4) Is the content of the training reviewed regularly, and in light of particular incidents? automatically fire on prisoners attempting to escape.’ The Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa (Guideline 25) similarly ‘limits the use of firearms for reasons of self-defence or the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury’. The Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (Principle 23) states that ‘personnel shall be forbidden to use firearms or other lethal weapons inside places of deprivation of liberty, except when strictly unavoidable in order to protect the lives of persons’. Thus, as a former Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Professor Christof Heyns has noted, ‘the guiding principle in respect of the lethal use of force or firearms is defence of one’s own life or that of others’. He further notes that ‘lethal force may be used intentionally only if the objective is to protect life, and less harmful measures are inadequate’ (UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions 2010, Point 60). The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2013) has stated that ‘in cases of flight or escape of persons deprived of their liberty, the State must employ all non-lethal means at its disposal to recapture the offenders and may only use lethal force in cases of imminent danger in which prisoners attempting to escape react against prison guards or third parties with violent means that threaten their lives. Therefore, there is no ethical or legal justification for a so-called ‘escape law’ legitimizing or empowering prison guards to 15