POLICY BRIEF painful. It made my body go into involuntary convulsions. It 23 was horrible.’ There is little published research related to the physical or mental effects of the use of stun shields or stun batons. However, a report by the Association of the Bar of the City degrading effects and has been condemned and prohibited by both the Special Rapporteur and the Committee against Torture as methods of restraining those in custody’.30 • In 2011 the chairperson of South Africa’s National Assembly of New York on the use of stun shields by the New York Committee on Correctional Services said electric shock Department of Corrections states: ‘The shock may cause equipment should be banned in prisons, and alternative intense pain and lead to serious injury; mere application of the means of restraint and control found.31 shield to the spine may cause injury and as such should be avoided.’24 The report also warns against using stun shields near the eyes, genitals or open wounds. The document details a case where ‘in December 1995, a corrections employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice received two 45,000- Breach of standards The use of electric shock equipment may breach regional and international norms and standards32 in several ways: • By inflicting torture. South Africa’s own Prevention and volt stun shield shocks as part of a required training exercise. Combating of Torture of Persons Act 13 of 2013 is clear that Shortly after the second shock, he collapsed and died.’ The ‘no one shall be subjected to acts of torture’. Other South autopsy stated that the corrections official died as a result of African laws33 and regional standards34 prohibit torture and cardiac dysrhythmia due to coronary blockage following an other forms of ill-treatment. electric shock by the stun shield.25 A justice of the peace, who conducted an inquiry into the death, concluded that ‘the electric shock threw his heart into a different rhythmic beat, causing him to pass away’.26 More research into the effects of hand-held direct contact electric shock devices is urgently required. Condemnation of the use of electric shock weapons A number of bodies have condemned the use of electric shock weapons. The following are examples: • The UN Committee against Torture has recommended that stun belts should be ‘abolish[ed] … as methods of restraining those in custody’.27 • The European Commission (EC) has classified body-worn electric shock devices, such as stun belts, as equipment that ‘has no practical use other than for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.28 The EC prohibits the import into or export from the European Union of these devices, while recognising that other forms of electric shock equipment can be used to perpetrate torture. • The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of • By using or threatening the use of excessive force. Bodyworn electric shock equipment, by acting both as a restraint and a stun device that can inflict severe pain, potentially increases the amount of force used. Similarly, the use of hand-held direct contact electric shock devices, such as stun batons and stun shields, provides little tactical advantage over non-electrified equipment but may increase the amount of force used.35 • By the mental suffering inflicted. Even if the electric shock component of a stun belt is never triggered, the mere fact of wearing a device that can deliver a painful shock at any moment causes profound mental suffering. One inmate who had a stun belt applied noted that ‘this mental restraint was far worse than being beaten. The mental pain and suffering last far longer.’36 • By its humiliating and degrading effects. The UN’s updated Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners of 2015 (known as the Mandela Rules) state that the ‘use of chains, irons or other instruments of restraint which are inherently degrading or painful shall be prohibited’.37 A stun-belt manufacturer said that one of the ‘great advantages’ of body-worn electric shock weapons is their Torture calls for the strict regulation of electric shock devices, ability to ‘humiliate the wearer’38 – not least through urination as they ‘can cause acute pain and are open to abuse’. and defecation, which often occur when the devices The council completely opposes the use of stun belts for are activated. controlling the movement of detained persons, as ‘such equipment is inherently degrading for the person to whom it is applied, and the scope for misuse is particularly high’.29 • UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Méndez has 4 shock stun belts and restraint chairs), has humiliating and • By violating the rights of pre-trial detainees. Electric shock equipment is used on both pre-trial detainees and sentenced offenders in South Africa. However, the Luanda Guidelines,39 produced by the African Commission on explicitly stated that ‘[t]he use of physical restraints that are Human and Peoples’ Rights, state that ‘no detained person inherently inhuman, degrading or painful (such as electro- while being questioned shall be subject to torture or other COMPLIANCE THROUGH PAIN: ELECTRIC SHOCK EQUIPMENT IN SOUTH AFRICAN PRISONS