A/HRC/26/36 (c) Proportionality 92. As was stated above, in the case of many laws, proportionality is not recognized at all, but others do contain a reference to proportionality in some form or another. For example, “[t]he force used shall be proportional to the objective to be achieved, the seriousness of the offence, and the resistance of the person against whom it is necessary, and only to the extent necessary while adhering to the provisions of the law and Standing Orders.” While this represents a clear exposition of the requirement of proportionality for the use of force in general, it does not address and thus leaves open the special case where lethal force is used and strict proportionality is the norm. Somewhere in the legal system – whether in the legislation or in court decisions or elsewhere – the “protect life” principle must be incorporated. 93. The emphasis in the laws reviewed is often placed merely on law enforcement objectives and not on the question of whether the person concerned poses a threat. The domestic laws of some States do not explicitly require either necessity or proportionality in the use of force by law enforcement officials. For example, “[i]f upon being so commanded, such assembly does not disperse … [a police officer] may proceed to disperse such assembly by force.” These laws still largely follow the colonial model. In a striking example of an exclusive emphasis on law and order, one law allows for a police officer to use force as may be necessary to prevent any person involved in a demonstration from passing a barrier (erected by the police), “which force may extend to the use of lethal weapons”. 94. While in the majority of countries considered there is a general provision regulating the use of force by any means, some countries do in fact make special provision for the use of firearms. This constitutes good practice. Some such domestic laws are in compliance with the international principles regarding the use of lethal force. For example, “[t]he use of firearms shall be allowed only if strictly necessary to preserve human life”, and “[f]irearms may only be used [for] saving or protecting the life of the officer or other person, and in self-defence or in defence of other person against imminent threat of life or serious injury.” However, in other countries the threshold is set very low. The following provision is a case in point: “Police may use weapons [where] public order or security [is] at stake.” 95. In the context of arrest or escape, the use of force is often determined purely by the crime the person is suspected to have committed. A typical provision reads as follows: in the prevention of the crimes of burglary, housebreaking or forcible unnatural crimes, among others, “a person may justify any necessary force or harm, extending, in the case of extreme necessity, even to killing”. Offences that are classified as felonies and crimes such as kidnapping in other cases permit the lethal use of force in effecting arrest or preventing escape. Some countries allow the use of lethal force based on the penalty for the suspected criminal offence; frequently where life imprisonment or imprisonment for 10 years or more is prescribed, but this does not constitute a reliable proxy for the question whether the person concerned is dangerous. 96. Similarly, some States allow for the use of firearms against prisoners or convicted persons, suspected of attempting to escape, without additional safeguards. In some of the States considered for this Report, lethal force is allowed in the protection of property. 2. Provisions on accountability 97. The laws of some States contain extensive accountability procedures. However, in many other States there are no such provisions, though it cannot be excluded that provisions on reporting injury or death, or the use of firearms, may in some cases be contained in subordinate regulations. 16