ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES Lastly, the experts highlighted the need for accountability, as also expressed in Rules 22-26 of the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, and the link to effective complaints mechanisms as well as external, independent monitoring. à F or more on complaints, see below; see also Chapter 2, Prison management – inspection and external monitoring Use of force The Essex group noted that Rule 82 has not been updated in the course of the review and that its interpretation needs to draw on the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (BPUFF) and the Code of Conduct on Law Enforcement Officials. Accordingly, situations of ‘self-defence or in cases of attempted escape, or active or passive physical resistance to an order based on law or regulations’ described in Rule 82(1) only make the use of force permissible if and when it is also necessary and proportionate431 (for detailed guidance on these principles, see above). The experts noted a divergence between Rule 82 and Basic Principle 15 of the BPUFF. The latter states that force shall not be used ‘except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution, or when personal safety is threatened’. Concern was expressed over the ambiguity of the term ‘passive physical resistance’ in Rule 82(1). The experts discussed possible cases where this might apply and noted that the term could refer to instances where prison staff seek and fail to enforce an order, but emphasised that not every case of resistance to an order would render the use of force permissible. The experts felt that the term must not be interpreted too broadly and recommended the provision be clarified with concrete examples. Use of arms Provisions on the use of arms in the revised SMR remain limited to the provision of Rule 82(3), according to which prison staff performing duties in direct contact with prisoners should not be armed. The Essex group noted that officers guarding the external walls of a prison often carry firearms, yet would not be performing duties in direct contact with prisoners at the same time, and therefore should hand in their arms before they do. The Essex group noted ambiguity of the terms ‘arms’ and ‘armed’, which applies not only to conventional firearms, but to the full range of weaponry with which prison officials are equipped.432 Varying from one correctional setting to another, such arms can include batons, electrical discharge weapons (EDW), irritant sprays (e.g. pepper spray), kinetic impact weapons (e.g. so called ‘rubber bullets’), canines, – or even ‘ceremonial arms’ (e.g. whips). The experts reiterated that under no circumstances must prison officials be equipped with weaponry deemed to have no other use than for the purpose of torture or ill-treatment. Discussions at previous deliberations of the Essex group433 were recalled on the prohibition of body-worn Rule 82 (1) emphasises the proportionality aspect (‘no more than is strictly necessary’) and requires an immediate report of the incident to the prison director. Article 3 of the Code of Conduct also uses the term ‘only when strictly necessary’ and the commentary specifies it should be ‘exceptional’. 431  The use of dogs in some countries was also raised as a possible application of an arm. It was mentioned that in some countries officers carry ceremonial arms. 432  Essex 2, paras. 50-51. 433  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 110