Omega Research Foundation contact electric shock weapons, including on those with underlying health issues or who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of use. This is particularly important given the fact that there have been a number of deaths after the use of such weapons. The CPT has expressed “strong reservations” concerning the use of direct contact electric shock weapons for law enforcement purposes, pointing out that “properly trained law enforcement officials will have many other control techniques available to them when they are in touching distance of a person who has to be brought under control.”26 The upcoming UNODC Resource book on the use of force and firearms in law enforcement advises against the use of electric shock batons for law enforcement.27 Omega believes that electric shock batons do not meet a legitimate law enforcement objective that cannot be effectively accomplished with safer alternatives, and considers that their use for law enforcement purposes should be prohibited along with their corresponding production and trade. Illustrative examples of inappropriate use of electric shock batons: In many instances, reports of torture or other ill-treatment perpetrated using electric shock equipment do not specify the exact type of equipment used. Several factors can contribute to this, including a lack of technical information among torture prevention monitors and survivors of torture struggling to provide an exact description of the equipment or not wishing to go into great detail for understandable reasons. Nonetheless, the use of electric shock batons has been documented in multiple OSCE participating States, including the following examples: Italy: Amnesty International have reported on the repeated use of electric shock batons by Italian police against newly arriving refugees and migrants, particularly to forcibly fingerprint people in police stations as part of the “hotspot” approach where newly arrived asylum seekers are screened, identified and their asylum applications initially assessed.28 In repeated instances, those who refused to have their fingerprints taken were forced to comply through the application of electric shocks. Even children were subjected to such treatment. A 16-year-old boy from Sudan arrived in Italy on 7 June 2016 having fled the conflict in Darfur, which killed his father, and hoped to join his brother in France. When he was disembarked in Sicily, he was taken to a police station and detained there. He told Amnesty International: “After three days… they took me to the ‘electricity room’. There were three policemen wearing uniforms, plus a woman without uniform … The police then asked me to give fingerprints. I refused. Then they gave me electricity with a stick, many times on the left leg, then on the right leg, chest and belly. I was too weak, I couldn’t resist and at that point they took both my hands and put them on the [fingerprint] machine. I couldn’t resist.”29 26 European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Electrical discharge weapons, CPT/Inf(2010)28-part, https://rm.coe.int/16806cce1c accessed 11 May 2017, para. 78. The European Court of Human Rights has also adopted this view (see Case of Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 30 September 2014, para. 76). 27 UNODC Resource book on the use of force and firearms in law enforcement, advance copy, May 2017, p. 82. 28 Amnesty International, Hotspot Italy, How EU’s flagship approach leads to violations of refugee and migrant rights, EUR 30/5004/2016, October 2016. 29 Ibid, p.18. 9