A/HRC/26/36 98. Especially worrying, however, are laws that provide explicit immunity to law enforcement officials who have used force. These laws relate to the use of force by police generally or in specific circumstances. Despite acting outside of the scope of the law, these officials are granted lesser sentences and, at times, full immunity from prosecution. This is sometimes tied to the condition that they acted in “good faith”, but often there is a blanket ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts, mostly in the context of assembly. 99. The laws of some States require that criminal prosecutions can only be instituted against law enforcement officials when authorized by some arm of the State. 100. The practical result of a lack of proper accountability regarding violations of the right to life is that a situation is created where police officers are above the law. They are in effect given the power in their subjective discretion to create a situation that is worse than a “mini state of emergency” in two important ways: under a normal state of emergency the right to life is non-derogable, and the declaration of a state of emergency is subject to strict restraints. E. Less-lethal weapons 101. The Basic Principles require States to develop and use so-called “non-lethal incapacitating weapons” where appropriate.62 Given the relative lack of information on the risks associated with various weapons when the Basic Principles were drafted, it is not surprising that this reads almost like an unqualified endorsement of what today are commonly referred to in law enforcement as “less-lethal weapons”. Modern developments require a more nuanced and analytical approach. 102. The increasing availability of various “less-lethal weapons” over the last few decades has been a significant development in law enforcement. Their availability can lead to greater restraint in the use of firearms and can allow for graduated use of force. However, this depends on the characteristics of the specific weapons and the context of its use. 103. The manufacture and sale of a wide variety of “less-lethal weapons” has become a veritable industry and is expanding. The weapons promoted in this category have diverse characteristics, mechanisms of injury and associated risks. They include chemical, blunt trauma, electric-shock, acoustic weapons and directed energy weapons.63 104. The problem is that in some cases “less-lethal weapons” are indeed lethal and can lead to serious injuries. The risks will be dependent on the type of weapon, the context of its use, and the vulnerabilities of the victim or victims. Innocent bystanders may also be affected where weapons cannot be directed at one individual. 105. The growing, largely self-regulated market of “less-lethal weapons” cannot solely determine policing weapons technology, especially when it could involve unacceptable human cost.64 Clear and appropriate international standards are needed.65 106. There is a need for independent guidelines on the development and use of these weapon technologies, over and above standards that may be set by individual police forces or the manufacturers. Likewise, it may be necessary to place restraints on the international 62 63 64 65 Principle 2. Davison, “Non-lethal” weapons, Palgrave, Macmillan, 2009. Corney, Less Lethal Systems and the Appropriate Use of Force, Omega Research Foundation, 2011, p. 2. For example, Basic Principle 3. 17