A/HRC/8/3 page 24 services free of charge. They can control trouble-makers, administer brutal punishment and mobilize free labour on a large scale. They might also reduce inter-gang violence, provide a system of rewards that keep some prisoners contented and encourage respect for certain prison facilities. The temptation to rely upon them to carry out the basic functions of maintaining order and imposing discipline is especially appealing to administrators who are grappling with shrinking budgets, staff shortages, overcrowded facilities, demanding gang-based populations and little public or Government support. 70. There are, however, major problems with opting for this choice. First, killings occur regularly and the authorities are poorly placed to do anything to prevent them or to punish the perpetrators. Second, the practice invariably leads to widespread violations of a wide range of other human rights. Third, the supposed benefits of an orderly and disciplined prison population almost always degenerate into a system in which violence rules, drugs dominate, gang-based turf battles are unleashed and various forms of economic, social and sexual coercion or intimidation are facilitated. The process of abdicating responsibility 71. How does it come to pass that certain prisoners are placed in the position of maintaining order and imposing discipline on their peers, often arbitrarily and abusively, while the prison authorities stand idly by? The origins of this practice vary. In some cases, staff may have deliberately delegated power to particular prisoners, sometimes beginning by designating “trusties” or individuals who are trusted to behave responsibly, but then losing a degree of control over, or becoming in thrall to, the “trusties”. In other cases, inmates may have coerced the staff into recognizing their power. The extent to which control is surrendered also varies. Sometimes, the guards continue to monitor conditions and retain the capacity to intervene. In a remarkable number of cases, however, the guards have abandoned any attempt at regulating life within the prison and, instead, only secure the perimeter, preventing escapes and searching visitors for weapons and other contraband. 72. The violent death of some inmates is an almost invariable consequence of the abdication of authority to prisoners. There are several reasons for this. First, when prisoners run prisons, the “discipline” they impose is typically ruthless. Prisoners who fail to abide by their arbitrary rules risk beating, stabbing and other unlawful violence. Second, when prisoners run prisons, the strength of gangs will increase, as will the likelihood of fights between gangs. Third, when criminals run prisons, it is relatively easy for them to organize riots and uprisings. When guards exercise strong, continuous supervision, grievances can be addressed before they explode, and fights can be broken up before they escalate. However, once a full-blown riot has developed, the usual response is large-scale intervention by a military or police unit that too often resorts to overwhelming force and indiscriminate violence. On various occasions, scores of prisoners have died during the suppression of a single prison riot. The obligations of States 73. The State’s duty to protect the lives of prisoners is clear. In all circumstances, States are obligated to both refrain from committing acts that violate individual rights and take appropriate