A/HRC/26/36 85. The Basic Principles provide that Governments shall ensure that an effective review process is available and that persons affected by the use of force and firearms have access to an independent process, including a judicial process.61 D. Domestic laws on the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials 1. Requirements for the use of force (a) Sufficient legal basis 86. As a general concern, review of the laws studied for this report reveals that some States either explicitly allow the use of lethal force in violation of international standards, or leave the standards so widely open that it amounts to the same result. The twin requirements of necessity and proportionality are often either presented too weakly, or one, or both, are missing altogether. (b) Necessity 87. To start on a positive note: some domestic laws do contain clear requirements of necessity and proportionality in their use of force provisions. For example, “[a] police officer shall always attempt to use non-violent means first and force may only be employed when non-violent means are ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.” 88. The laws of some countries provide that force “not greater than that required” or as “little force as necessary” shall be used. As an expression of the necessity requirement, this is not problematic, but without accompanying provisions on proportionality, such statements set the bar too low, and will allow the fleeing thief, posing no immediate danger, to be shot with apparent impunity. 89. Provisions that regulate the use of force in a large number of the States considered for this Report are vague and loosely defined. Terms such as “use all reasonable means necessary”, “do all things necessary”, and “use such means as are necessary to effect the arrest” are frequently used as the standard for the application of force. Provisions such as these, if not narrowed by accompanying requirements of proportionality and necessity, allow for wide and uncontrolled discretion to be exercised by the law enforcement official, without any additional safeguards. Wide personal discretion on the part of law enforcement officials rules out effective accountability. 90. Another concern also regards those States that allow law enforcement officials, after unsuccessful attempts to disperse an assembly, to “cause it to be dispersed by military force”. 91. In those countries that provide that warning shall be given, many provide for two (or three) warnings before force may be used. Some countries, however, provide that once a warning has been issued for dispersal of an assembly, and the warning is not heeded, law enforcement officials may proceed summarily to disperse the assembly, by force. Some States have detailed provisions in police operational orders on the measures to be taken before dispersal of an assembly is allowed. This includes giving sufficient warning of the intention to disperse the assembly, as well as further warning before the dispersal takes place. Some countries also provide that any warning should be made in two or more languages, widely understood. 61 Principles 22–26. 15