A/72/178 considerations of lawful purpose, necessity or proportionality and irrespective of its qualification as torture under the applicable treaty definition. V. Application of the prohibition to weapons and other means and methods A. Relevance of the prohibition 48. While the lawfulness of specific weapons and other means of warfare has long been regulated in international humanitarian law, it has more recently also become an issue of consideration under human rights law with regard to the wider context of law enforcement. 61 It is increasingly recognized that certain weapons and other means of law enforcement may be inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading by nature or design and, accordingly, that their use, production and trade would be incompatible with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (General Assembly resolution 66/150, para. 24, and resolution 68/156, para. 30). 62 Ever since the establishment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, mandate holders have expressed concern in this respect, starting in the very first report of the Special Rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights, in 1986 (E/CN.4/1986/15, paras. 120-121), but most notably in a report prepared at the express request of the Commission in 2003 ( E/CN.4/2003/69). 49. Building on this body of work, the focus of the present report is on the relevance of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for the extra-custodial use of weapons and other means of employing force in law enforcement (hereafter “weapons”). Given that any weapon can be used in an unlawful manner and that the lawfulness of such use depends on the use of force principles outlined above, a distinction should be made between weapons that have to be regarded as inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading and those carrying an increased risk of being used for torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. States’ obligations under human rights law relating to the legal review of weapons will also be considered in the present report. B. Inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading weapons 50. It would exceed the scope of the present report to try to provide a comprehensive list of weapons that would have to be regarded as inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading. Nevertheless, on the basis of the extensive and progressive work produced by previous mandate holders, other United Nations mechanisms, States, academic experts and civil society, the below generic observations c an be made. 51. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, a weapon has to be considered as inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading if it is either specifically designed or of a nature (that is, of no other practical use than) to: (a) employ unnecessary, exces sive or otherwise unlawful force against persons; or (b) inflict pain and suffering on __________________ 61 62 18/24 See Basic Principles, principles 1-3. See also Stuart Casey-Maslen, ed., Weapons Under International Human Rights Law (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2014). See also European Council Regulation No. 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, notably articles 3 and 4; and Omega Research Foundation and Amnesty International, “The human rights impact of less lethal weapons and other law enforcement equipment”, April 2015. 17-12326