A/HRC/44/24 not be developed or put into operation unless it has been established that their use conforms to international human rights law.102 Special rapporteurs have further recommended that fully autonomous weapons systems that employ lethal or less-lethal force without meaningful human intervention once deployed should never be used for law enforcement during an assembly.103 46. Lack of proper training on the use of less-lethal weapons is also a major concern. Such training is needed to ensure that these weapons are not used in a way that gives rise to unintended, harmful and sometimes lethal consequences for protesters and bystanders. 104 Given that less-lethal weapons can become lethal or cause serious injury, law enforcement officials must be properly trained in their use. 105 The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, noting that protesters and bystanders have been wounded or killed following the use of less-lethal weapons, called for law enforcement officials to be trained on each type of device provided to them. In some cases, licences may be required for specific devices.106 47. The absence of adequate provisions in national law regarding the use of less-lethal weapons, including on the type and scope of technologies that can be acquired and used for national security purposes, is another cause for concern. 107 Only 12 States are reported to have specific laws on their use. 108 Increasingly, advanced technologies require a more detailed national regulatory framework and guidance on the development and use of new less-lethal weapons, including on how to ensure respect for human rights in their use. 109 New law enforcement weapons should be tested prior to their use by a legally constituted, independent, multidisciplinary and transparent panel of experts that is free of direct commercial or law enforcement interests. Mandatory monitoring should also be required for the use of such weapons.110 48. When making business decisions and entering into business relationships, companies should apply human rights due diligence to avoid infringing on the human rights of individuals and should address the potential adverse human rights impacts these decisions may entail. Business enterprises developing and manufacturing less-lethal weapons should address the human rights impacts of such weapons. Concerns have been raised about the development of new less-lethal weapons and ammunition by private companies without a clearly defined law enforcement purpose and lacking evidence of their operational advantage.111 Private companies that develop and manufacture less-lethal weapons should provide information about specific risks these weapons may pose to human rights, be transparent about technical specifications and conduct safety analyses. 112 VII. Conclusions and recommendations 49. Given the importance of the enjoyment of the right of peaceful assembly for democracies, States must ensure that this right can be enjoyed to the greatest extent possible. Furthermore, States should endeavour to fully understand the causes behind protests, including structural discrimination, restrictions on fundamental freedoms and socioeconomic inequalities. 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36, para. 65. A/HRC/31/66, para. 67. Contributions of Defensoría del Pueblo de la Nación Argentina, Italy, ODIHR and the Omega Research Foundation. Contribution of the Omega Research Foundation. A/69/265, para. 74. Contribution of the National Human Rights Institution of Mexico and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. https://rightofassembly.info. A/69/265, para. 73. Ibid., para. 75. Contribution of Amnesty International. See United Nations Human Rights Guidance on Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement. 13