Omega Research Foundation defined safeguards in place if it needs to be used exceptionally.39 The ECtHR has endorsed these concerns and recommendations.40 Omega considers that grenades, launched cartridges and any mass dissemination of chemical irritants (e.g. via large backpack-style sprayers) should be prohibited in confined spaces. Targeted use of chemical irritants (e.g. via hand-held spray) should only be resorted to when strictly necessary, proportionate and for the shortest possible time using the minimum amount of irritant necessary to reduce the level of violence and to re-establish control. Illustrative examples of inappropriate use of chemical irritants: Chemical irritants are widely used in places of detention and for crowd control purposes in many OSCE participating States, and there are multiple reports of human rights violations perpetrated through the use of such equipment. Turkey: Turkish authorities’ use of chemical irritants in response to the Gezi Park protests in 2013 has been widely criticised by human rights bodies and non-governmental organisations. Reports state that tear gas cartridges and grenades were fired or thrown into makeshift medical centres, ambulances and public shelters on numerous occasions during the period of unrest.41 The inappropriate firing of chemical irritant cartridges (on a flat trajectory rather than a high-angled shot and/or from close distances) was heavily criticised. Human rights organisations reported that at least 11 individuals suffered vision loss42 and at least two people died after being struck in the head by tear gas cartridges.43 The ECtHR has recognised that the use of a launcher to fire of tear gas cartridges generates a risk of serious injury or death,44 stating that firing tear gas cartridges directly at protesters is not an appropriate police action and constitutes a violation of the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.45 France: Chemical irritants have been increasingly used in recent years against asylum seekers in certain OSCE participating States. The Bar Human Rights Committee of England & Wales (BHRC) has reported on 39 See, for example, CPT, Report to the Swedish Government on the visit to Sweden carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 18 to 28 May 2015, CPT/Inf (2016) 1, para. 94; CPT, Report to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 19 to 30 March 2007, para. 79; CPT, Report to the Government of Cyprus on the visit to Cyprus carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 23 September to 1 October 2013, para. 40. 40 Case of Ali Güneş v. Turkey, judgment of 10 April 2012, paras. 39-41. 41 See, Physicians for Human Rights, Contempt for Freedom: State Use of Tear Gas as a Weapon and Attacks on Medical Personnel in Turkey, pp. 18-19; FIDH, Turkey: Gezi, One Year On, https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/turkey_avril_2014_uk_web.pdf accessed 15 may 2017, p.10. 42 Physicians for Human Rights, Contempt for Freedom: State Use of Tear Gas as a Weapon and Attacks on Medical Personnel in Turkey, September 2013, https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/Turkey-ProtestsReport-September-2013.pdf accessed 15 may 2017, p. 9. 43 FIDH, Turkey: Gezi, One Year On, May 2014. 44 Case of Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 July 2013, para. 42. 45 See Case of Ataykaya v. Turkey, judgment of 22 July 2014 and Case of Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 July 2013. 13