a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
The trade in torture technologies
abi dymond and joe farha, members of the Omega Research Foundation1.
“It’s possible to use anything for torture but it’s a little easier to use our devices.”
CEO of an American company producing electric-shock equipment2.
Whilst almost anything can be used for torture or ill-treatment, there is a wellestablished trade in technologies specifically designed for this purpose and in technologies which are commonly abused. This market is real and substantial. Whilst
it is difficult to obtain reliable statistics on the overall global trade in technologies
specifically designed for torture, the global less lethal weapons market was estimated at $1.4 billion in 20113 and the value of the market is expected to treble by
20204.
With the prohibition on torture clearly established in international law, it is unacceptable that technologies specifically designed for torture and ill-treatment are
still being widely produced and traded, and that few controls exist on the trade in
less lethal weapons. This article provides an introduction to some of the different
types of less lethal weapons that are commonly used for, or have no other purpose than, torture or ill-treatment, and gives an overview of their trade patterns. It
then looks at existing efforts to regulate the trade, and the loopholes and omissions
in such measures, before concluding with recommendations to improve regulation
and oversight in this area. For reasons of space, the following analysis focuses
mainly on electric-shock weapons. It is also important to note that restraints also
have a variety of implications for torture and ill-treatment. With those caveats
in mind, the table below gives an overview of some commonly used less lethal
technologies which can be of particular concern for human rights, including for
torture or ill-treatment.
243
244
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
Kinetic-impact weapons:
use impact force to affect the target.
Chemical irritants: use chemical agent(s)
(e.g. CS, pepper spray) to affect the target.
Technology
Features
Technology
Features
Spiked batons
Deemed by the European Commission (EC)
and others to have no use other than torture
or ill-treatment.
Sprays
and aerosols
Batons
Used for a variety of purposes including self-defence
and to secure arrest. Widely issued and commonly
misused, including to deliver excessive blows,
or beatings to individuals already restrained.
Small, hand-held sprays that deliver chemical irritant
at close range. Commonly used by police officers
and in places of detention, easily misused, or used
for an excessive length of time.
Canisters
and grenades
Used to deliver chemical irritant over long ranges
to multiple individuals. Often used in crowd control;
can cause panic and stampedes. Particularly dangerous
if used in confined spaces.
Direct impact
projectiles
Fired directly at an individual and release the chemical
irritant on impact. Easy to deliver excessive doses
to particular individuals.
Kinetic impact projectiles
(sometimes called
“rubber bullets”)
Incapacitate individuals at long range. Independent
studies found many projectiles to be highly inaccurate
and carry a high risk of death or serious injury.
Often made from rubber, plastic or fabric.
Electric-shock weapons:
use electrical currents to affect the target.
Technology
Features
Body worn
electric-shock
Deemed by the EC and others to have no use other
than torture or ill-treatment. Placed round the subject’s
body and delivers an electric-shock activated by remote
control.
Wired projectile
electric-shock weapons
(e.g. Taser*).
Deliver an electrical shock through wired darts.
The shock disrupts the nervous system, temporarily
incapacitating the subject. Linked to death and serious
injury and can be easily misused.
Electric-shock
batons, guns and
electric-shock shields.
Deliver an electric shock when placed directly against
the individual. The weapon does not incapacitate but
works through pain compliance. Can be easily misused.
The key areas of production and proliferation for such equipment are North
America, the European Union and South East Asia, in particular China. Other notable sources of production include Brazil, Russia and South Africa. The following
sections look in more detail at particular weapons, the risks they pose, and their
trade patterns.
245
246
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
Technologies with no use other than torture or ill-treatment
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
>
Spiked batons
As the above table illustrates, certain technologies have been deemed by bodies
– ranging from European Commission and American export control bodies, UN torture prevention bodies and the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention
of Torture* – to have no use other than torture or ill-treatment and to have no place
in law enforcement. They include:
>
Left: Chinese manufactured spiked baton
© Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation.
Right: Spiked baton photographed at Security China 2010.
© Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation.
Body worn electric-shock weapons.
Body worn electric-shock weapons encircle various parts of the subject's body (often
the waist, but also legs, arms or wrists) and
deliver an electric shock on activation by a
remote control device. The UN Committee
Against Torture* (CAT) recommended that
the most common variant of such devices, the
electric-shock belt, should be “abolish(ed)…
as methods of restraining those in custody”5.
The weapon’s functioning is of concern for
Anti’Scape Stun Belt (Force Group, South Africa).
several reasons. The electrical current causes
© Company Image.
severe pain. An American inmate, who was
shocked with an electric-shock belt whilst shackled and wearing belly chains
during a transfer to a Correctional Mental Health Facility for treatment, described
it as “very intense shocking pain… so intense I thought that I was actually dying”6.
It can also cause short and long term physical side effects, including muscular
weakness, urination and defecation, and heartbeat irregularities and seizures7.
The mere possibility that the device could be activated also causes the wearer a
great deal of mental suffering. The Supreme Court of Indiana, ruling on the use
of stun belts in courtrooms, found that other forms of restraint would serve the same
purposes "without inflicting the mental anguish that results from simply wearing
the stun belt and the physical pain that results if the belt is activated"8.
National legislation and newspapers reports indicate that body worn electricshock devices are authorised or available for use in correctional centres in the USA9,
South Africa10, Macau, and Singapore11. Recent news articles in India also suggest
that body worn-electric shock devices are being considered for use12. Producers
of body worn electric-shock devices include the USA, South Africa and Taiwan13.
Spiked batons, pictured above, are mainly produced by Chinese companies.
They have reportedly been used by law enforcement officials in both China14 and
Nepal15 and reportedly exported from China to Cambodia and Thailand16. A 2002
account from Falun Gong members details the threatened use of such equipment
by Chinese police officers at Wanyaoshan Detention Centre. “Policewoman Fan
saw one of the practitioners lying on the ground motionless, so she kicked her
brutally and said, ‘Get up! Don't play dead. If you don't get up now, I'll use the spiked
baton to beat you to death’”17. Such batons are designed to increase the amount
of pain and injury inflicted on subjects, and can cause tearing and puncture injuries. As such they conflict with the provisions of UN Basic Principles on the Use
of Force and Firearms, which states that less lethal weapons should: “restrain […]
the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons”. Whilst ordinary batons may be used in pursuit of a variety of legitimate objectives, the addition of spikes has no legitimate law enforcement rationale.
>
Thumb cuffs
Left: Thumbcuffs photographed in Taiwan in 2008. Right: Thumbcuffs in use.
© Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation.
247
248
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
Thumb cuffs are predominantly produced and marketed by South East Asian countries, even if they are not believed to be widely used in law enforcement18. The
Chinese company Jiangsu Wuwei Police Equipment Manufactuing Co. Ltd claims
to be a “direct supplier of Chinese Police/Prison/Judicial System.” Their website
lists a range of equipment for sale including, “[…] Professional heavy duty thumb
cuffs are excellent compact restraints that make escape very difficult. Works best
on men as women have smaller joints and may be able to wriggle out […] Grooved
interior of these thumb cuffs makes escape extremely painful if possible at all.”19
The utility of such devices for legitimate law enforcement purposes is unclear,
whilst their propensity for use in stress positions amounting to torture and other
ill-treatment is evident. Indeed US trade control legislation lists them as “specially
designed implements of torture” and has a “general policy of denial” for the export
of such items20. In 1995 a Tibetan monk Palden Gyatso gave evidence about torture
he had undergone in Chinese prison systems. His testimony included reference
to the use of thumb cuffs21. A case heard in the European Court of Human Rights
in 2008 referenced the use of thumb cuffs by Russian police officers whilst committing abuses in Nizhegorodskiy District Department Police Station on 25 November 199922.
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
Technologies easily misused for torture or ill-treatment.
Whilst almost anything can be used for torture or ill-treatment, some technologies are more easily misused than others, whilst others have particular features
which lend themselves to abuse. Particularly problematic technologies include the
following.
>
Projectile electric-shock weapons.
Taser* X26 with a selection of cartridges. Both pictures taken at Milipol 2007, France.
© Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation.
Projectile electric-shock weapons, the most well-known of which is Taser*, can
have a legitimate role in law enforcement. Their ability to incapacitate an individual
at a distance suggests that such weapons may be effective, in some circumstances,
against individuals posing a risk of death or serious injury to avoid the resort to
police firearms. However there have been several instances where such weapons
have been used against individuals who did not pose such a risk.
There have also been a number of deaths and serious injuries proximate to the use
of Taser*: in the USA, over 300 deaths were reported between 2001-2008 alone23.
The pain they inflict also gives cause for concern. In 2007, the UN Committee
against Torture* on its visit to Portugal stated its concern that the use of the X26
(pictured above) “causes severe pain constituting a form of torture, and that in
some cases it may even cause death […] The State party should consider relinquishing the use of electric “Taser* X26’ weapons, the impact of which on the physical
and mental state of targeted persons would appear to violate Articles 1 [prohibition on torture] and 16 [prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment] of the Convention”24.
249
250
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
Concerns about their use for torture and ill-treatment are exacerbated by particular design features, which can vary between different weapons systems. There
are concerns over the length of shock generated; the fact that some models allow
operators to deliver a continuous shock for as long as the trigger is held down;
and the weapon’s ability to deliver shocks when pressed against the body (acting
like a stun gun/baton as well as incapacitating from a distance).
Whilst American company Taser* International is the best known manufacturer,
with Tasers products sold in over 100 countries25, wired projectile electric-shock
weapons are also produced by companies in Russia and Taiwan, often with less
information publically available about the weapon’s design characteristics.
>
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
possibly other injury […] the stun shield should not be applied to an open wound or
cut, as a general rule. Doing so will be considered by most people as torture”27.
These weapons can inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving
substantial marks and can further be used to inflict repeated and prolonged shocks.
One example of misuse – in this instance, in South Africa – was heard by the
UN Human Rights Committee* in 2010. The Committee found that the treatment
experienced by a detainee, Bradley McCullen, which included “beatings with batons
and shock shields while he was lying naked on the wet floor of the prison corridor […] (causing) a dislocated jaw, irreversible damage to his teeth and wounds
on his left arm and left side of his head”, constituted a violation of his right to be
free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment28.
Contact electric-shock weapons.
>
Left: stun guns and stun batons photographed on Jing Jiang Guoanda Electronic Company's stall at CPSE 2009, China.
© Robin Ballantyne/Omega Research Foundation. Right: a range of electric-shock shields produced by South African
company Force Group © Company Image.
Contact electric-shock devices (stun guns, batons, and shields) are widely used
by law enforcement officials. Suppliers of contact electric-shock weapons now
exist in almost all regions of the world, although manufacture appears to remain
relatively narrow geographically, with small numbers of producers in South
America, Europe, South Africa, Russia and India; larger numbers in North
America; and an overwhelming concentration in East Asia (particularly China,
South Korea and Taiwan). Whilst they are considered by some to be a useful tool
for self-defence at close quarters26, they are inherently prone to misuse. In the
United States of America, notes for trainers providing instruction on the use of stun
shields in correctional facilities state that “the shock or arc could cause injury to
the eyes […] shocking to the (testicles and scrotum) could cause intense pain and
Chemical irritant canisters and grenades.
Whilst the use of chemical irritant
canisters and grenades is highly
contested in law enforcement, they
are seen as useful in preventing or
countering collective violence, for
example to disperse crowds posing an imminent threat of serious
injury29. Grenades and cartridges
are intended to hit the ground, upon
Condor Non Lethal Technologies chemical irritant and other
which they release chemical irritant
grenades on display at DSEI 2011 © Robin Ballantyne/Omega
into the surrounding area typically
Research Foundation.
either by pyrotechnic dispersion
(which releases a cloud of smoke containing the irritant) or blast dispersion,
which releases a fine powder containing the irritant of choice. Given the large
amount of chemical agent they disperse, they are typically not intended for use in
confined spaces, due to the increased risk of injury or death they pose. However
well-documented incidents in Bahrain30 and Egypt31 show such weapons being
fired directly at individuals and fired in enclosed spaces. In one incident documented by Physicians for Human Rights in Bahrain, a bystander to a protest was hit
in the head by a chemical irritant canister fired from approximately 15 meters
away and was rendered unconscious32. Whilst acts such as this may not always
com-prise torture under the UN Convention Against Torture definition, they can
constitute excessive, disproportionate use of police force and, thus, ill-treatment.
251
252
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
Trade controls on torture technologies
Whilst many countries exercise controls over the civilian use or possession of
the types of equipment highlighted above, the international trade in such devices
has received much less comprehensive legislative coverage. Where controls
over the import and export of such devices are exercised, they are often limited
in nature, either controlling only a small range of devices or are, conversely, too
broad in nature to allow effective implementation33. For example, China is a major
source of manufacture and supplier of policing and security equipment. Annex A,
Chapter 6: Supplementary Provisions, Article 29 of the PRC export controls (conventional weapons), states that: “these regulations apply to the export of police
equipment”. However it is unclear exactly what equipment is covered by this
wording, and evidence suggests that the trade is not regulated effectively. For example, according to the UN Panel of Experts on Liberia, a delivery of Chinese arms,
ammunition and policing equipment – including 50 “JG 986 type electric batons’ –
to the Liberian Special Security Service (SSS) was completed in early 2008, supplied by China’s state-owned Bureau of Military Equipment & Technology Cooperation (Bometec)34. The Liberian SSS was implicated in serious human rights violations, including extra-judicial execution, during the rule of Charles Taylor35.
During 2006 and 2007 the SSS continued to be involved in human rights violations
including the harassment and assault of local journalists36. Neither the UN Sanctions
Committee nor the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) were notified by the Chinese
or Liberian governments upon the delivery of the consignment, as is required under
Security Council resolution 1792 (2007)37.
In 2006, the EU passed the first set of multilateral trade controls over the “Tools of
Torture”. These controls took the form of “Council Regulation (EC) 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”
(the Regulation)38.
This Regulation imposes a prohibition on the international trade in goods which
have no practical use other than for the purposes of capital punishment, torture or ill-treatment. These goods, often referred to as “Annex II” goods after the
Annex in which they are listed, include death penalty equipment (such as electric
chairs), and body worn electric-shock weapons. The Regulation also requires controls on the trade of certain goods that could be used for torture or ill-treatment
– known as Annex III goods – which include the chemical irritants PAVA and CS
and some, but not all, restraints and electric-shock weapons. Since its implementation, the Regulation has been subject to an on-going review process. In 2011
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
the European Commission amended the Regulation to take account of a number
of recommendations by civil society organisations39. These included adding spiked
batons to Annex II and strengthening the prohibition on body worn electric shock
weapons.
Outside of the European Union (EU), the United States of America imposes the
most comprehensive set of export controls on a broad range of listed equipment
types. This includes electric-shock, mechanical restraints, chemical irritants,
kinetic impact devices and death penalty equipment. Provisions are also made for
“[…] specially designed implements of torture (listed under section 0A983) including thumbscrews, thumbcuffs, finger cuffs, spiked batons, and parts and accessories, require a license for export to all countries including Canada40 and the US government has a “general policy of denial’ for any licence applications for such items41.
Despite the positive steps taken to develop and implement trade controls at the
EU level and among some exporting States (notably the US), there are several key
areas in the field of export controls that require strengthening.
Limitations to a list-based control system.
At present the strongest set of trade controls covering the “tools of torture” are listbased. These contain categories of specifically named items whose international
trade is either prohibited or controlled. Whilst list-based systems are often favoured
for the clarity they give to exporters and importers, they are only applied to very
specific devices or categories of equipment. Therefore equipment whose characteristics are inherently similar but are not “named” in the list may not be subject
to controls. An example here is the issue of body worn electric-shock equipment.
When the Regulation first came into force Annex II contained “Electric-shock belts
designed for restraining human beings by the administration of electric shocks […]”.
However electric shock belts are only one of several types of bodyworn electricshock systems available on the international market. Others include, electricshock “cuffs” “sleeves” and even a “bracelet”42. None of these devices were controlled under the original Regulation. This allowed policing and security equipment
providers, based in the EU, to offer a range of bodyworn equipment which had
an identical function to electric-shock stun belts. In 2011 the European Commission amended Annexes II and III of the Regulation. The amendments included a
recast of the body worn electric-shock equipment controls which now covers “[…]
electric-shock devices which are intended to be worn on the body by a restrained individual such as belts, sleeves and cuffs […]”.43
One way of combating such weaknesses is through the incorporation of a tortureend use catch all clause into legislation. Such clauses, already in use in a number
253
254
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
of spheres such as conventional arms control legislation44, would allow governments to prohibit the trade in any items not contained in list-based control systems,
“that clearly have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or ill treatment; or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such items would be
used for the purposes of torture and other ill-treatment”45. At present it appears
that no such torture end use catch all clauses exist. The UK has expressed
its intention to develop such a clause46 but this does not appear to be imminent.
Other issues with existing regulation
Brokering activities47, arranging the transfer of equipment from one third country
to another, is inadequately covered by existing legislation. The UK is one of the
few States to have brought in full extra-territorial controls over the brokering of
the tools of torture. The Regulation does not at present control brokering activities by companies or individuals within the EU concerning the transfer of items
between third countries outside the EU, where the items will not enter the EU customs territory. In January 2009, journalists reported that the French distributor of
US made electric-shock devices brokered the supply of electric-shock systems from
the US to Senegal therefore circumventing the need for a French export license.
Further, very few States exercise controls over the advertising and marketing
of torture technologies48. The lack of controls on promotional activities is a major
anomaly in trade control legislation as it allows individuals to promote prohibited equipment. At present the Regulation does not control promotional activities
associated with the equipment listed, even though there have been a number of
well documented examples of companies promoting Annex II listed equipment
considered to have no use other than for the commission of torture and other
CIDTP at trade events in European member States49.
Training
The provision of training services for the tools of torture occurs at both a governmental and private level. Governments often offer equipment, such as less lethal
systems, and training on their deployment as part of larger security assistance
packages50. Training is often conducted either by members of the police or armed
forces or subcontracted to a private company. A number of private companies also
offer equipment and training directly. At present such training is not adequately
covered by export control legislation. The Regulation controls the provision of technical services associated with Annex II equipment, however no provision is made
for Annex III listed goods. Omega and Amnesty International have previously highlighted the case of footage broadcast on French television channel which pur-
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
ported to show members of the French municipal police force training personnel
from a private security company in Cameroon on the use of US manufactured
electric-shock systems51. Because the devices were not listed in Annex II of the
Regulation the training services were not subject to any licensing requirement by
France, outside of that imposed by France’s current export control laws.
The present article highlights the need for stronger action by States, both in
terms of more effective national regulation (including a torture-end use catch
all clause), and (in the longer term) in pushing for stronger regional and international mechanisms controlling the trade. Indeed, a former Special Rapporteur on
Torture* and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment52 has called
upon States to: designate and prohibit the manufacture, transfer and use of certain forms of equipment “specifically designed for” or “which has no or virtually
no, practical use other than for the purpose of” torture, or whose use is inherently
cruel, inhuman or degrading and; “to suspend the manufacture, transfer and use
of equipment whose medical effects are not fully known or whose use in practice has revealed a substantial risk of abuse or unwarranted injury.”53 The Arms
Trade Treaty which, at the time of writing, was being negotiated by UN member
States would be one such avenue to prohibit the trade in torture equipment, and
control less lethal and restraint equipment, at the international level. On-going
negotiations on the scope of a potential Arms Trade Treaty have so far not resulted
in the inclusion of such equipment but this – and other regional and international
avenues for controlling the trade – should be carefully explored. Indeed, a November
2011 resolution by the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly calls upon all
States to: “take appropriate effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other
measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export, import and use
of equipment that has no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”54.
[1] The Omega Research Foundation is a UK based NGO dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based research
on the manufacture, trade in, and use of, military, security and police (MSP) technologies. [2] John McDermit, President of Nova Products, Inc, as quoted in Amnesty International (2003)
The Pain Merchants: security equipment and its use in torture and other ill-treatment ACT 40/008/2003 p. 3.
[3] Business Wire (2012) Homeland Security Research Corp.’s New Market Research: Non-Lethal Weapon Technologies
to Transform 21st Century Conflicts available online at http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120405005511/en/
Homeland-Security-Research-Corp.%E2%80%99s-Market-Research-Non-Lethal. (accessed 26/09/2012)
[4] Summary of Homeland Security Research Publication Non-Lethal Weapons: Technologies & Global Market – 2012-2020
in Report Linker (2011) Non-Lethal Weapons: Technologies & Global Market – 2012-2020 (accessed 26/09/2012)
http://www.reportlinker.com/p0799475-summary/Non-Lethal-Weapons-Technologies-Global-Market-.html.
[5] Committee Against Torture (2000) Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee Against Torture: United States
of America, 15/05/2000.A/55/44, §. 175-180 (Concluding Observations/Comments).
[6] Amnesty International (2001) Stopping the torture trade, p. 1.
[7] P. K Yoon “The ‘Stunning’ Truth: Stun Belts Debilitate, They Prejudice, and They May Even Kill” Capital Defence Journal 15,
2 (2003) p. 385-386.
255
256
Analysis of the phenomenon of torture . A WORLD OF TORTURE . ACAT 2013 REPORT
a world of torturE . acat 2013 report . Analysis of the phenomenon of torture
[8] Ibidem, p. 389.
[39] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT30/062/2012/en. (accessed 02/09/2012).
[9] Amnesty International (1999) United States of America: Cruelty in control? The stun belt and other electro-shock equipment
in law enforcement.
[40] See Section 0A983 of the Commerce Control List – available online at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecf
r&sid=ba2d5996d28cc22033ea2bfb857555cc&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:2.1.3.4.45&idno=15#15:2.1.3.4.45.0.1.2. [accessed:
04.04.2011]
[10] Regulations accompanying the Correctional Services Act, 1998 (issued in 2004) section 18.2 and Department of Correctional
Services (2005) B Order – Sub Order 2: Safety and Security. Chapter 16: Security Equipment 4.3.1, refer to “electronically
activated high security transport belt”.
[11] Macau Daily Times (2010) New prison to make ground this year:
http://www.macaudailytimes.com.mo/macau/13721-New-prison-break-ground-this-year.html. (accessed 30/08/2012)
http://www.epm.gov.mo/English/contents/Community_EN/News/20100623.htm. (accessed 02/09/2012)
[12] http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_to-combat-crowd-ahmedabad-cops-to-get-non-lethal-weapons_1595282.
(accessed 02/09/2012)
[13] Company information held on file at the Omega Research Foundation.
[14] In 2007 Amnesty International reported an account from February 2002 when a Falun Gong Member was threatened with
a spiked baton at the Wanyaoshan Detention Centre. Amnesty International (2007) “European Union: Stopping the Trade in
Tools of Torture” https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL34/001/2007/en/ff4bc11b-d3bc-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/
pol340012007en.pdf. (p. 9)
[15] He has lost his right eye after being subjected to an indiscriminate baton charge by the Police during a peaceful torch
rally on 11 May 2003 in Ratnapark, Kathmandu. Mr. Sharma sustained severe injuries to both his eyes because the Police
allegedly hit him several times with iron-spiked sticks and specifically targeted his eyes”. Quoted from the Asian Human Rights
Commission – Urgent Appeals Program, http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2003/461.
[16] Amnesty International International and Omega Research Foundation From Words to Deeds: Making the EU ban
on the trade in “torture tools” a reality, London, Amnesty International Publications, 2010, p. 20.
[17] Amnesty International (2007) European Union: Stopping the trade in tools of torture p. 9.
[18] Company information held on file at the Omega Research Foundation. Promotional literature for thumb-cuffs was available
at Milipol, Paris, 2011.
[19] http://www.cccme.org.cn/shop/cn1211363136/offerinfo-8078601.aspx. (accessed 25.09.2012)
[20] See the 2008 Report on Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls, published by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Industry and Security, p. 7-8, available from: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2008/2008-fpr.pdf [accessed: 04.04.2011].
Also reprinted in the 2010 version of this report, here: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2010/2010_fpreport.pdf, p. 9. [accessed:
04.04.2011]
[21] http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1995&m=4&p=5-3_1. (accessed 25.09.2012)
[22] Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, Date of judgement 24-01-2008. (accessed 25.09.2011).
[23] Amnesty International (2008), Less than lethal: The use of stun weapons in US law enforcement AMR 51/010/2008, p. 6.
[24] Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee Against Torture: Portugal, Thirty-ninth session, Geneva,
5-23 November 2007, UN doc. CAT/C/PRT/CO/4, 19 February 2008, p. 14.
[25] Taser International, Taser International Statistics: http://www.taser.com/press-kit (15/08/2012).
[26] South African Department of Correctional Services (2005), B Order – Sub Order 2: Safety and Security.
[27] Missouri Department of Corrections (2008), Training Academy Lesson Plan: Divisional Response Team Training, p. 61.
[28] UN Human Rights Committee (2010), Human Rights Committee 100th Session Views Communication No 1818/2008,
Bradley McCullum vs South Africa, CCPR/C/100/D/1818/2008.
[29] Amnesty International Egypt Rises: Killings, detention and torture in the “25 January Revolution” MDE 12/027/2011, p. 29.
[30] Physicians for human rights (2012), Weaponising tear gas: Bahrain’s unprecedented use of toxic chemical agents
against civilians.
[31] Amnesty International (2011), op. cit., p. 24.
[32] Physicians for Human Rights (2012), op. cit., p. 20.
[33] China is a major source of manufacture and supplier of policing and security equipment. Annex A, Chapter 6: Supplementary
Provisions.
[34] Report of the Panel of Experts on Liberia submitted pursuant to paragraph 5 (e) of Security Council resolution 1792 (2007)
concerning Liberia (S/2008/371, 12 June 2008), § 32-36, and Annex III (reproduced shipping document).
[35] Amnesty International, Liberia: Lack of justice for students, victims of torture including rape (AFR 34/010/2001,
16 October 2001).
[36] Amnesty International, Annual Report 2007, human rights Situation in Liberia: http://www.amnesty.org/fr/region/liberia/
report-2007; and Amesty International, Annual Report 2008, human rights Situation in Liberia: http://www.amnesty.org/fr/region/
liberia/report-2008.
[37] Report of the Panel of Experts on Liberia, op. cit.
[38] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32005R1236:EN:NOT (accessed 02/09/2012).
[41] See the 2008 Report on Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls, published by the US Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Industry and Security, p. 7-8, available from: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2008/2008-fpr.pdf [accessed: 04.04.2011].
Also reprinted in the 2010 version of this report, here: http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2010/2010_fpreport.pdf, p. 9. [accessed:
04.04.2011]
[42] http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/aviation-security/2008/jul/1/want-some-torture-with-your-peanuts/.
(accessed 02/09/2012)
[43] Official Journal of the European Union, COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No. 1352/2011
of 20 December 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used
for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 21 December 2011, 4 pages:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:338:0031:0034:EN:PDF.
[44] European Union External Action, Non-profileration, disarmament and export control: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/eeas/
foreign-policy/non-proliferation,-disarmament-and-export-control-/security-related-export-controls-i?lang=en.
(accessed 02/09/2012)
[45] Amesty International, op. cit., p. 28.
[46] U.K. Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Export Control Act, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/2002/28/pdfs/ukpga_20020028_en.pdf ; Review of export control legislation (2007): Government’s initial response to the
public consultation, 6 février 2008, 21 pages, http://bis.ecgroup.net/Publications/EuropeTradeExportControl/ExportControl.aspx.
[47] Official Journal of the European Union, COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 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,
30 July 2005, 19 pages: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:200:0001:0019:EN:PDF.
[48] “RIGHTS: Senegal media gets a taste of Taser”, www.ipsnews.net, 17th February 2009:
http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/01/rights-senegal-media-gets-a-taste-of-taser/.
[49] For example, The Swiss company SECFOR attended the Eurosatory 2010 exhibition 107 in Paris held on 14-18 June 2010.
The literature on the SECFOR stand advertised a number of electroshock devices including an, “anti scape stun belt”.
See Amnesty International and Omega Research Foundation (2012) No more delays: Putting an end to the EU Trade in the Tools
of Torture: http://www.omegaresearchfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/no%20more%20delays%20290612.pdf
p. 21. (accessed 02/09/2012)
[50] Examples include the US Marine Crops training Thai military and police forces to use a range of less lethal weapons.
http://www.pacom.mil/media/news/2011/06/16-Marines_thai_military_conclude_training.shtml (accessed 02/09/2012)
and China’s donation of equipment, including electric-shock stun guns, to the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic
of Kyrgyzstan. http://www.kabar.kg/eng/society/full/4202. (accessed 02/09/2012)
[51] “Police et Polissons”, TV documentary broadcast on France 3, 30 March 2008, 23h10: http://ma-tvideo.france3.fr/video/
iLyROoaftt4z.html; and Amnesty International and Omega Research Foundation, From Words to Deeds: Making the EU ban on
the trade in “tools of torture tools” a reality: http://www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/EUR01/004/2010/en/fb4ff4cc-9a20-44dc8212-ebd9f4727f7b/eur010042010en.pdf, p. 32.
[52] UN Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights (2004) Civil and political rights, including the questions
of torture and detention. Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture,
Theo van Boven Sixty-first session, 15 December 2004, 12 pages.
[53] Ibid.
[54] UN General Assembly 66th Session, Third Committee, 10 November 2011.
257