A/HRC/26/36 62. Governments and law enforcement agencies must “develop a range of means, as broad as possible, and… equip officials with various types of weapons and ammunition, thus allowing for a differentiated use of force and firearms. These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations.”32 (d) Prevention/precaution 63. To this should be added the – often-overlooked – requirement of prevention or precaution.33 Once a situation arises where the use of force is considered, it is often too late to rescue the situation. Instead, in order to save lives, all possible measures should be taken “upstream” to avoid situations where the decision on whether to pull the trigger arises, or to ensure that all the possible steps have been taken to ensure that if that happens, the damage is contained as much as is possible. 64. A failure to take proper precautions in such a context constitutes a violation of the right to life. In McCann and Others v the United Kingdom, for example, the European Court of Human Rights (application No. 18984/91, 27 September 1995) held that the use of lethal force by soldiers who erroneously but in good faith believed that a group of terrorists were about to trigger an explosion did not violate the right to life, but that the lack of control and organization of the operation as a whole did violate the right. (e) Proportionality 65. The use of lethal force must also meet the requirement of proportionality. In general terms, when any right is limited, proportionality requires that the good that is done must be compared with the threat posed.34 The interest harmed by the use of force is measured against the interest protected; where force is used, whether lethal or not, the same norm applies. According to the Basic Principles: “Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officers shall… exercise restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and legitimate objective to be achieved.”35 66. Proportionality sets a maximum on the force that might be used to achieve a specific legitimate objective. It thus determines at what point the escalation of force that is necessary to achieve that objective must stop.36 If necessity can be visualized as a ladder, proportionality is a scale that determines how high up the ladder of force one is allowed to go. The force used may not go above that ceiling, even if it might otherwise be deemed “necessary” to achieve the legitimate aim. 67. Special considerations apply when (potentially) lethal force is used. In the context of such use of force, the requirement of proportionality can be met only if such force is applied in order to save life or limb. What is required in respect of lethal force is thus not ordinary proportionality but strict proportionality. 68. According to article 3 of the Code, law enforcement officials may “use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty”. The Commentary further explains: “[e]very effort shall be made to exclude the use of firearms, especially against children. In general, firearms should not be used except when a suspected 32 33 34 35 36 Principle 2. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Violence and the Use of Force, Geneva, 2011, p. 17; and Melzer (footnote 19 above), pp. 101 and 199. See Nachova (footnote 29 above). Principle 5. A/61/311, para. 42. 11