A/HRC/26/36 including members of the military forces who have such powers).2 They often do so under difficult and dangerous circumstances, and in some cases they cannot fulfil their functions without resorting to force. The modern State, which has to deal with a range of challenges, cannot function without the police. The human rights system as such also cannot be effective without the police and, in some cases, without the use of force. 23. Power, of course, comes with responsibility. The extensive powers vested in the police are easily abused in any society, and it is in everyone’s interests for it to be the subject of constant vigilance. To function properly, the police need proper guidelines on the use of force and appropriate mechanisms for accountability to be in place. 24. The police may cause as many as 1 out of every 25 violent deaths in the world, in some cases in conformity with the law but in others not. It is estimated that 21,000 people were killed worldwide in 2011 by law enforcement officials (of an overall estimate of 526,000 violent deaths).3 Reports of impunity where people have died at the hands of the police are likewise common. 25. Some cases of unlawful killings by law enforcement officials involve the use of force that no one would argue is lawful under either international or domestic law, as with politically motivated hit squads and extrajudicial executions. This report does not deal with such situations: instead, it focuses on those cases where it is widely accepted that the police may use some force but where the domestic law poses lower standards for the use of force than those set by international law and/or where domestic law does not make provision for proper accountability mechanisms. 26. There are a number of reasons why this topic is important. One of the State’s central duties is to protect life. It is a particularly serious breach of this duty when its own agents violate this right – leaving little hope that they will be effective in preventing violations by others. The first step of securing the right to life is thus the establishment of an appropriate legal framework for the use of force by the police, which sets out the conditions under which force may be used in the name of the State and ensuring a system of responsibility where these limits are transgressed. 27. However, it is not only violations of the right to life that are at stake when the police use force. Open-ended and unchecked powers of the police intimidate and preclude those who wish to exercise other rights and freedoms. Latitude for the police to use force at will is often an integral part of authoritarian rule, where “might is right”. It is widely accepted today that, as part of democratic policing, law enforcement officials should be accountable to the population. They are citizens in uniform, performing a function on behalf of other citizens and their powers thus need to be constrained. 28. The relevance of an inquiry into the question whether proper constraints on police power are in place is further enhanced by the increased prevalence of demonstrations as a method of political and social participation. Lives on all sides of the spectrum, including those of police officers, are lost unnecessarily when the way in which protest is managed leads to an escalation of violence on all sides. Political and other freedoms are brought under threat and the security of the State may eventually be put at risk if the power of the police is not properly controlled. 29. The specific relevance of domestic law in this context stems from the fact that the laws of each State remain the first line and in many cases effectively the last line of defence 2 3 General Assembly resolution 34/169, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, commentary to art.1, (1979). Geneva Declaration Secretariat, Global Burden of Armed Violence 2011: Lethal Encounters, Cambridge, CUP, 2011. 5