Grasping the nettle

32 Grasping the nettle: Ending Europe’s Trade in Execution and Torture Technology
Chapter 6 / Mechanisms to
review Regulation scope and
implementation
Article 15 of the Regulation provides that when the Commission is dealing with matters relating to
the Regulation, “The Commission shall be assisted by the committee on common rules for exports
of products, set up by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69.” 134 Article 16 provides that the
Committee “shall examine any question concerning the implementation of this Regulation” raised by
either the Committee chair or a Member State. 135
Although this Committee procedure would, in theory, have dealt with general matters arising from
the operation of the Regulation, in practice the Committee met very irregularly and it was unclear
how rigorous its monitoring of the Regulation’s implementation had been. Since 2007, Amnesty
International and Omega have highlighted these failures and have recommended the introduction of
an effective mechanism to formally review the Regulation and its implementation by Member States
at regular periods. 136
The continuing need for such a regular and effective review mechanism is highlighted by the current
failure of the existing control regime to address ongoing limitations in the scope of the Regulation,
and adequately monitor, analyse and respond to:
n technological changes and market developments in the field of security equipment;
n evidence from intergovernmental and non-governmental human rights monitors demonstrating
the misuse of certain types of security equipment;
n limitations and failures of individual Member State implementation of the Regulation;
n systemic failures in the design and operation of the existing Regulation procedures.
Equipment that should be prohibited under the Regulation
Electric shock devices for direct contact
Amnesty International and Omega have concluded that any use of electric shock stun guns, stun
batons and stun shields by law enforcement personnel carries an unacceptable risk of arbitrary force
due to the intrinsic nature and design of such weapons that could amount to torture and other illtreatment.
If and when they are employed, the officers applying such shocks would usually not know
if the victim has an underlying medical condition. Nor can officers reasonably ascertain the degree
of pain or incapacitation they inflict with such a weapon since that pain can vary significantly from
person to person depending on a range of physical and psychological factors, as well as different
environmental factors such as the presence of moisture.
Furthermore, it is evidently easy for a law enforcement officer to use a direct contact electrical
weapon to apply extremely painful shocks by hand at the push of a button, including to very sensitive
parts of the body, such as on their neck, throat, ears, underarms, groin and genitals, without
long-lasting physical traces. Moreover, such weapons can be used to inflict repeated or prolonged
shocks on an individual. International and regional human rights monitors have documented the
use of electric shock stun equipment to torture and ill-treat detainees in many parts of the world (as
illustrated by the cases below).
134 EC Regulation 1236/2005, Article 15.
135 EC Regulation 1236/2005, Article 16.
136 See for example: Amnesty International and Omega Research Foundation, European Union: Stopping the Trade in Tools of Torture, POL
34/001/2007, February 2007.
Amnesty International May 2015 Index: EUR 01/1632/2015