A/HRC/17/28* 94. In some cases, the police are authorised to erect barriers and “may use such force as deemed necessary, including the use of lethal weapons, to prevent someone from crossing the barrier”. 95. Where such special use-of-force regimes apply, the police are in effect given the power to declare their own “mini states of emergency” in respect of the demonstration in question, without any of the safeguards that normally apply to such a declaration. Moreover, in such cases, the non-derogable right to life is, for all practical purposes, suspended. 96. In the majority of countries surveyed, the rules that regulate the use of force during demonstrations are the same as those that apply to any use of force by the police. While this is generally a healthier approach to follow, it does not necessarily mean compliance with international standards in all cases. There are three sub-categories among these countries. 97. In the first instance, in a large number of countries the standards applicable to the general use of force by the police are vague and loosely defined, and do not provide clear guidance. The following is a typical provision: “Any police officer may use such force as, in the circumstances of the case, may be reasonably necessary.” 98. The problem with such a provision when it sets a general standard for the use of force is the same as where it is encountered in specific regimes for demonstrations, as discussed above. While the standards often sound laudable in the abstract (and may, in practice, copy the wording of part of the international standards), because there is no further circumscription, they are imprecise enough as to be stretched to justify excessive use of force. 99. Where the term “necessary force” is used in such a context, the meaning is often more aligned with the permissive implications of the international law term “all necessary means,” than with the restrictive interpretation appropriate in cases where rights are limited to ensure that only the minimum force required is used. Where this is the case, law enforcement officers can, in effect, also create their own “mini states of emergency” in respect of demonstrations. 100. In the second instance, there are countries where the norms regarding the general use of force are clearly in violation of international standards. In one country, firearms may be used for a variety of reasons by the Internal Security Forces, including “at the behest of the administrative authority” and “to defend their positions.” 101. In the third instance, there are countries that comply, or substantially comply, with the international standards. 102. In some, but not all, countries, there is an automatic system of enquiry as to whether firearms should be used during demonstrations. 103. It may be concluded from the foregoing overview that domestic legal dispensations in respect of the deadly use of force during demonstrations in a significant percentage of countries do not comply with international standards. Equipment, logistics and training 104. Countries also face practical challenges in dealing with demonstrations. In one country, a former policeman who was interviewed drew attention to the lack of equipment, such as less-than-lethal weapons: “If policemen are carrying live rounds, and that is all they have, they are going to use it sooner or later when they face hostile crowds.” A number of people interviewed stressed the fact that police who do not have the necessary protective gear will, understandably, resort more easily to the use of lethal force or firearms to defend themselves. An interviewee with practical experience in Northern Ireland commented on 16