A/72/178 powerless individuals. In extra-custodial settings governed by the law enforcement paradigm, examples of inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading weapons include: (a) spiked batons or shields, and any other type of weapon or ammunition specifically designed or of a nature to unnecessarily aggravate wounds and suffering; (b) stun belts and any other type of body-worn device capable of delivering electric shocks through remote control, given that they cause not only physical pain but also constant emotions of extreme anguish and humiliation, as well as the complete subjugation of the victim irrespective of physical distance; and (c) certain unnecessarily painful, injurious or humiliating devices designed to restrain persons in the process of arrest, such as thumb- and finger-cuffs and -screws. 63 C. Weapons involving a high risk of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 52. Weapons that might not be inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading may nonetheless carry significant risks of being used in a manner contrary to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, thus placing particular emphasis on the requirement of precautions. 53. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, such weapons include certain types of firearms and ammunition, such as fully automatic weapons and high -calibre and high-energy expanding bullets, all of which carry a significant risk of causing unnecessary or excessive injury. They also include a range of “less lethal” weapons, such as certain types of kinetic impact projectiles, electrical discharge weapons, chemical irritants, water cannons and disorientation devices. 64 54. In principle, the current trend towards replacing firearms with “less lethal” incapacitating weapons is positive in that it promotes a differentiated use of force and aims to minimize harm. 65 At the same time, the widespread availability of incapacitating weapons also tends to lower the threshold for the use of force and entails a significant risk of “overuse” in situations in which the desired purpose could reasonably have been achieved through less coercive, less dangerous and less harmful means. Moreover, although “less lethal” weapons are designed to incapacitate while avoiding lethal outcomes, they are also specifically designed to inflict pain or suffering as a means of repelling or otherwise coercing the targeted persons. For example, several bodies and specialized organizations have specifically highlighted the risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment associated with the extra-custodial use of electrical discharge weapons delivering electric shocks through projectiles (for example, tase rs), or upon direct physical contact (for example, batons, shields or helmets). 66 55. Another issue arising with regard to certain “less lethal” weapons is their indiscriminate effects, which make it difficult to restrict the use of force and the resulting harm as required by the principles of necessity and proportionality, particularly in the presence of innocent bystanders (for example, in crowd control or hostage-taking). 67 While the indiscriminate nature of a weapon alone does not __________________ 63 64 65 66 67 17-12326 See European Council Regulation No. 1236/2005 and amendments. See also Omega Research Foundation and Amnesty International, “The human rights impact of less lethal weapons”, pp. 8 -9. See Physicians for Human Rights and International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations, “Lethal in disguise: the health consequences of crowd -control weapons”, 2016. Basic Principles, principle 2. CAT/C/AUS/CO/4-5, para. 13; CAT/C/USA/CO/3-5, para. 27; Council of Europe, “20th general report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, 2010, paras. 69-73; and Neil Corney, “Less lethal systems and the appropriate use of force”, paper prepared for the Omega Research Fou ndation, March 2011, p. 6. See also Omega Research Foundation and Amnesty International, “The human rights impact of less lethal weapons”, pp. 17-18 and 26; and Human Rights Council resolution 25/38, para. 9. 19/24