11. Security Equipment used for Torture and Ill-Treatment

In June 2002, the 15th anniversary of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the EU called on all countries to comply with its unconditional prohibition on all forms of torture, and to adhere to international norms and procedures. The EU noted that even though 129 States were parties to the Convention, torture continued to occur and perpetrators were going unpunished, even in countries that had ratified it.(319)

But despite such high profile support for the Convention against Torture the EU's commitment to take action against torturers and torturing states has not been reflected in its controls on the equipment that can be used for torture. This is despite the requirement of Criterion Two of the EU Code of Conduct which requires that MSP equipment should not be exported if there is a risk that it will be used to abuse human rights. Companies in the EU and New Member States are still manufacturing and trading in such equipment. Amnesty believes that some of this equipment should be banned outright and that strict export controls should be introduced on the rest.

In December 2002, the European Commission introduced a draft Trade Regulation which proposes a new control regime on equipment that can be used for torture. However, this Regulation has remained stuck "in committee" and Amnesty International has serious concerns that the EU member states are attempting to weaken the draft controls.
This chapter provides examples of the continuing trade within the EU and new member countries in stun guns, shock batons, leg cuffs, leg irons and other restraint technologies, and the lack of effective export controls. Amnesty International continues to document how the uncontrolled trade in such technologies contributes to torture and serious human rights violations in many countries worldwide.


Mechanical Restraints

Handcuffs, leg irons, shackles, chains and thumbcuffs are some of the most widely used security devices. Although certain forms of restraint devices such as handcuffs(320) or straightjackets are sometimes needed by law enforcement officials to control dangerous prisoners, many are also widely misused.

For almost half a century, international human rights standards have required governments to prohibit absolutely the use of chains and irons, such as shackles, on prisoners.(321)Yet in many parts of the world, chains and irons and other mechanical restraints are used to punish, torture and mistreat prisoners and detainees. Amnesty International has documented the use of leg irons in at least 38 countries over the past five years. In many countries around the world – including most of the EU countries and new Member States - the trade in such restraints is not sufficiently regulated and is shrouded in secrecy. Amnesty International has discovered that in the EU and new Member States 18 companies manufacture or supply leg restraints and 4 companies manufacture or supply thumb-cuffs.

However these figures do not represent the true scale of this trade. Few governments provide trade data for these products and many countries do not require licences for the export, trans-shipment or brokerage of such products.

USA, Latvia and Estonia:
Between 1998 and 2002 the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) in the USA granted three licences for export to Latvia of crime control equipment described as "thumbcuffs, leg irons and shackles" (Category OA983). (322) In 2003, the BXA issued a further licence for this category valued at $1540 for Latvia.(323) Yet in 2001 the Latvian government had changed its legislation to prevent the use, production and transfer of certain specifications of restraint equipment.(324) Because the US licence data is not as transparent as it could be, it is not possible to identify the specific goods that were authorised for export, but it remains of concern that the US may have authorised the export of goods to Latvia whose use, production and transfer has been prohibited.

During 1998 – 2002 the BXA also issued five licences for the 0A983 category to Estonia. Responding to questions from Amnesty International, the Estonian government stated that "thumb-screws and serrated thumb-cuffs are classified as goods used to commit human rights violations and therefore the following is prohibited: import, export and transit of goods used to commit human rights violations and the provision of services related thereto regardless of their country of destination, unless such goods are displayed as objects of historical value in a museum."(325) The contradiction between the statements of the Estonian and Latvian governments and the US trade data remains unexplained. Amnesty International has contacted the governments concerned and is awaiting a response.

Spain:
The case of the Spanish company Larrañaga y Elorza highlights the urgent need to introduce comprehensive controls on security equipment which cover the whole of the EU. Over the last decade, Larrañaga has specialized in manufacturing restraint devices.(326) In October 2000, following the campaigning work of Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Intermón-Oxfam and Médecins sans Frontières and an investigation by journalists from El Pais and the Observer newspapers, the Spanish government finally announced that it would stop the trade in leg irons and shackles by Larrañaga y Elorza.(327)

Larrañaga continues to manufacture a range of handcuff restraints under the trade name 'Alcyon' and has promoted them at trade shows such as the IWA Sporting and Hunting show in Nuremberg (Germany).(328)

Despite the statement from the Spanish government banning the trade in leg irons and shackles at least two companies in other countries are continuing to offer belly chains and leg restraints that appear to be manufactured using Alcyon cuffs. For example, in February 2004, the Venezuelan company Centurion CA website was offering a range of Alcyon products under the following headings: esposas con bisagra (handcuffs) models 5232, 5233, Cadena para cintura (Belly Chain) model 5240, Grilletes para pies (leg cuffs).(329) The Assegai Trading Company, in South Africa, also claims to supply the model 5240 Belly Chain which is reported on the website as being constructed using the model 5050 handcuffs.(330) The company also offers a range of other restraints including leg irons. (331)

These examples raise serious questions on the effectiveness of the Spanish government's commitment on stopping the trade in such restraints.

US Death Row prisoner held in UK leg cuffs
Kenny Richey, a UK national from Scotland, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1987 for an alleged arson attack and the death of a two-year-old girl in Colombus Grove, Ohio. He maintains his innocence and his lawyers have been fighting to have new evidence heard. However, a combination of a poor-quality defence at the original trial and a system which makes getting fresh evidence heard extremely difficult, mean that he has already had 13 execution dates. As this report went to press, his case had reportedly been sent to the US Supreme Court for reappraisal.

Kate Allen, Director of the UK Section of Amnesty International, recently visited him at Mansfield Correctional Facility, where she found him shackled with a belly chain and leg chains, bolted to the floor. Amnesty International subsequently discovered that his wrist and leg cuffs have 'Made in England' stamped on them. This is despite the fact that the UK has banned the manufacture and transfer of such leg restraints. Amnesty International is currently investigating the manufacturer of the restraints and the means by which they were transferred to the US.


Electroshock Devices

Electro-shock stun weapons deliver electric shocks. In addition to severe pain, they can cause loss of muscle control, nausea, convulsions, fainting and involuntary defecation and urination. Human rights and torture rehabilitation organisations have described the electric shock baton as "the universal tool of the modern torturer". Between 1990 and 2003, Amnesty International documented electro-shock torture in 87 countries.(332) The manufacturers of electro-shock weaponry argue that their products are not lethal, but deaths have been associated with their use.

Amnesty International calls for governments to adopt measures to halt the production of and trade in electro-shock stun weapons until a rigorous and independent investigation has been conducted into their effects, and has warned governments since 1997 about the uncontrolled international spread of electro-shock stun guns and batons.

Between 2000 and 2004 there were at least 63 companies in 13 of the EU or new Member States manufacturing, selling or marketing electro-shock stun weapons(333). This is only a partial picture as official government data on exports of electro-shock devices is rarely published.(334)

United Kingdom:
Certain states in Europe have attempted to rigorously regulate the trade in electro-shock stun weapons and some, specifically the UK, have attempted to ban these weapons altogether. The UK banned stun guns in 1988 after they had been used by criminals for several muggings.(335) Following campaigns by human rights groups including Amnesty International, Robin Cook, then UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, stated in July 1997 that:

"We are committed to preventing British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment designed primarily for torture and to press for a global ban...I can now announce that we will take the necessary measures to prevent the export or trans-shipment from the UK of the following equipment: Portable devices designed or modified for riot control purposes or self-protection to administer an electric-shock, including electric-shock batons, electric-shock shields, stun guns and tasers." (336)

Unfortunately, despite the ban on direct exports it soon became apparent that without controls on arms brokers, British companies could continue to supply such weapons as long as they did not come onto British territory. In 1998, after an 18 month inquiry into a British businessman who had admitted selling a consignment of 200 electric shock batons to the Cyprus police, one Metropolitan Police source was quoted as saying "this decision means that any company or individual can now trade in these weapons with impunity, provided they do not come through Britain."(337)

The UK government is in now in the process of introducing legislation prohibiting UK arms dealers from brokering torture equipment whether they operate in the UK or abroad and to whomever they sell it. Once again Amnesty supports this initiative but remains concerned about the scope of the UK definition of torture equipment and about effective enforcement.

The new UK brokering controls may have an impact on UK firms such as Intelligent Defence Technology Systems Ltd (IDTS) which, in October 2003, was offering a range of stun weapons including electric batons,(338) electric riot control and protective shields,(339) and stun guns.(340) IDTS appeared to be aware of the limitations on trading in such goods within the UK as all three web pages for the electro-shock devices included a "Legal Note" which stated "this device is available for sale to all European Member countries. Please be aware that in the United Kingdom, these units cannot be sold direct to the public, as it is illegal to own or have one of these devices in your possession. All other EU member states can purchase direct or apply for more details in the normal manner."

The electro-shock devices offered by this company were manufactured in Taiwan. If IDTS had been involved in arranging for these weapons to be sold within the EU or elsewhere outside the UK, then whilst they would have been "brokering" electro-shock devices their actions would have been legal. It remains to be seen how effective the new UK "brokering" controls will be when they are introduced in May 2004.(341)

No matter how effective the export controls of individual EU states are, without consistent and coherent controls at the EU level, they will not prevent brokers of electro-shock weapons operating in other European Union or New Member States - or from marketing their products elsewhere in the world. The Czech Republic company Fly-Euro Security Products has claimed to manufacture the Scorpion 200 (Scorpy Max) and Power 200 range of stun guns. These products have been marketed by at least 26 companies in 14 countries including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland and the United States of America. (342) Many of these countries have no domestic or export controls on stun guns, treating them as "free weapons".

The spread of electroshock weapons is not just a concern for the human rights community. A recent report by the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) in the UK said that police there are ill- equipped to thwart criminals armed with electro-shock weapons. The report states that more criminals, particularly drug dealers, are carrying illegal stun guns, which are easily bought on the internet.(343) UK regional police forces have identified that stun guns are being smuggled into their regions, either from France or Germany or by mail order over the Internet.(344)

Amnesty International has serious concerns that unless the EU introduces consistent and coherent controls, security forces who torture their citizens, and criminals, will be able to continue to obtain electro-shock devices from EU-based companies.


Kinetic impact devices

Kinetic impact devices are those designed to hit people. They are used in crime and riot control and can inflict severe pain. They include the oldest weapons available to law enforcement officials - hand-held devices like batons, truncheons, sticks and clubs - and the more sophisticated technology of launched devices, which includes plastic baton rounds and rubber bullets. Kinetic impact devices easily lend themselves to human rights abuse and their application needs to be strictly controlled within human rights standards for law enforcement.

The 1979 UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials states that police officers and others may use force "only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty". In many parts of the world, officers armed with sticks or truncheons, plastic baton rounds or rubber bullets, ignore this injunction and inflict injuries amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Amnesty International has documented the misuse of batons, stick and canes in at least 105 countries around the world in the past five years. Between 2000 and 2004 there were at least 24 companies in seven of the EU or new Member States manufacturing or selling batons or similar striking weapons.

AI has documented the use of rubber and plastic bullets – potentially lethal weapons with the capacity to inflict cruel and inhuman treatment - to commit, or facilitate, human rights abuses in at least 32 countries worldwide in the past five years.(345) Between 2000 and 2004 there were at least 19 companies in 9 of the EU or New Member States manufacturing, selling or marketing rubber and plastic bullets.

In recent years manufacturers have introduced a wide range of newer types of "less lethal" weaponry, in response to changes in policing methods and budgets. Many of these are based on new launching weapons or updated designs of ammunition to be fired from shotguns or riot guns. Between 2000 and 2004 there have been at least 18 companies in six of the EU or New Member States manufacturing or selling launched kinetic weapons. These devices are often described by suppliers as "non-lethal" or "less-than-lethal", but can kill or seriously injure as the case study below illustrates.

Switzerland:
On 29 March 2003, Denise Chervet and her son, Joshua, took part in a demonstration in Geneva against the World Trade Organization and the war in Iraq. Violent confrontations developed in Cornavin station between some demonstrators and the police. Following an altercation with a police officer, Joshua was hit on the head with a police truncheon and Denise Chervet threw her bottle of beer at the police. Moments later she was hit by projectiles fired by a police officer: one hit her body, and the other the side of her forehead. The fragments of plastic and metal that were found in her head wound could not be removed due to their proximity to facial nerves and the risk of paralysis.

She reported that she had seen a police officer raise something that looked like a gun to his shoulder and fire at her. Initial statements from the Geneva police categorically denied responsibility for injuring her. However, a few days later the Geneva police and cantonal government authorities acknowledged police responsibility. Their statements indicated that several days before the demonstration, two police officers had tested a weapon firing plastic capsules containing paint and covered with bismuth (a type of metal) and that one of these officers had then used the weapon during the demonstration, without authorisation.

The weapon was the FN303 "less lethal launcher" manufactured by Belgian company FN HERSTAL, and marketed as offering "low risk of permanent injuries" even at a distance of one metre. FN HERSTAL marketing material warns, however, "For safety reasons, never aim towards face, throat or neck".(346) The wounding and permanent injury of Denise Chervet demonstrate the possibilities for abuse inherent in "less than lethal" security equipment.


Chemical incapacitants

Tear gas is the common name for a family of irritant chemicals whose domestic use by police and security services in crowd control and public order situations is allowed in most countries. Irritants create pain and should only be used in very limited and controlled quantities and situations to disperse violent assemblies posing an imminent threat of serious injury. However, tear gas is often misused to inflict pain on individuals and suppress the rights of peaceful protest.

Amnesty International has documented the firing of tear gas at demonstrators, many of them non-violent, in more than 70 countries in the last five years. There are no specific international standards for the legitimate use of tear gas by law enforcers, but many states claim that police are trained to use tear gas only to disperse a crowd that is becoming violent, and issue national regulations for this purpose. However, Amnesty International has many reports of tear gas being used in confined spaces where the targeted persons cannot disperse, resulting in serious injuries and even deaths. Similarly, to avoid unwarranted injuries police are often instructed not to fire or throw tear gas canisters directly at individuals, but these warnings often go unheeded.(347) Again there appear to be inconsistencies in the extent to which the different EU member states control the sale and export chemical incapacitants.

Between 2000 and 2004 there were at least 60 companies in twelve of the EU or new Member States manufacturing, selling or marketing chemical incapacitants.(348) Amnesty International campaigns for rigorous independent investigations to assess the risk to human rights of law enforcers using specific security technologies and equipment, including chemical irritants like tear gas and pepper sprays, and calls for such research to be published in open scientific journals for public scrutiny before governments authorize the transfer or use of such equipment by security forces. AI is concerned that substances whose safety has been inadequately tested by manufacturers are being adopted by security forces and used in what amounts to live experiments on civilian populations - experiments that continue even when people have reported short-term extreme suffering and long-term health problems.

Equipment used for the death penalty:
The European Union (EU) states that it "is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and has consistently espoused its universal abolition, working towards this goal." In its relations with other countries which maintain the death penalty, the EU states that it aims at the "progressive restriction of its scope and respect for the strict conditions, set forth in several international human rights instruments, under which capital punishment may be used, as well as at the establishment of a moratorium on executions so as to completely eliminate the death penalty."(349)

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and so welcomes the EU's policy. However, Amnesty remains concerned that the EU's opposition to the death penalty has yet to be reflected in the EU's export controls on equipment that can be used to facilitate executions. Whilst the extent of this trade is very small in terms of global trade and few manufacturers or suppliers openly publicise their business, it is clear that by design or by default European Union companies have supplied such equipment.

Italy and China
During 2001 and 2002 Amnesty International recorded more than 5,900 death sentences and more than 3,500 executions in China, although the true figures were believed to be much higher. In an effort to improve cost-efficiency, Chinese provincial authorities are introducing mobile execution vans in which convicts are given a lethal injection, replacing the traditional execution method of firing squads.

Eighteen mobile executions vans, converted 24-seater buses, were distributed to all intermediate courts and one high court in Yunnan province in 2003. In December of the same year, the Supreme People's Court in Beijing urged all provinces to acquire execution vans "that can put to death convicted criminals immediately after sentencing". The windowless execution chamber at the back contains a metal bed on which the prisoner is strapped down. Once the needle is attached by a technician, a police officer presses a button and an automatic syringe injects the lethal drug into the prisoner's vein. The execution can be watched on a video monitor next to the driver's seat and can be recorded if required. As well as domestically produced vans, researchers have discovered that some vans being used as mobile execution chambers are manufactured in China by Naveco which is a joint venture company established between the Chinese state owned truck and bus assembler Yuejin Automative and the Italian company IVECO(Fiat).

The newspaper Beijing Today reported that use of the vans was approved by the legal authorities in Yunnan province on 6 March 2003. Later that same day, two farmers, Liu Huafu, aged 21, and Zhou Chaojie, aged 25, who had been convicted of drug trafficking, were executed by lethal injection in a mobile execution van. Zhao Shijie, president of the Yunnan Provincial High Court, was quoted as praising the new system: "The use of lethal injection shows that China's death penalty system is becoming more civilized and humane". But official reports describing the new system as "efficient" and "cost-effective" raise concerns that they will facilitate an even higher rate of execution. Amnesty International has written to IVECO raising its concerns and asking searching questions over the company's potential involvement in the conversion of its vans into mobile execution chambers. At the time of going to press, no response has been forthcoming from the company.

Sri Lanka
The death penalty was originally reintroduced in Sri Lanka in 1960 after the assassination of the Prime Minister and is carried out by hanging.(350) In March 1999 the President of Sri Lanka announced that death sentences would no longer be automatically commuted. Following this decision scores of people were sentenced to death for murder, but nobody was executed. Appeals for the resumption of executions increased during 2000, amid a rise in crime in the country.(351) In November 2000 the government finally announced that it would be putting into practice the decision to execute taken in 1999, but nobody was executed. In 2003 the Sri Lankan parliament debated reintroducing executions, but no vote was taken. In September 2003 the Interior Minister assured a delegation of European parliamentarians that the government had no plans to resume executions.

Against this background Amnesty International was very concerned to find that in February 2001 a Sri Lanka company had sent a request for "Noose (rope) to be used in the gallows" to an EU-based tenders website.(352) It is not known which, if any, European company responded to this request but given the historical involvement of UK companies in supplying hanging ropes, Amnesty International calls on the EU to ban the export of ropes specifically designed for use in executions.

Proposed EC Trade Regulation

In January 2003, following concerns expressed by the European Parliament(353) and government officials in the European Union, the European Commission (EC) proposed a Council Trade Regulation.(354) If adopted by the EC and ratified by EU member states, it will (a) ban trade in equipment which "has no, or virtually no, practical use other than for the purpose of" capital punishment or torture, from member states to countries outside the EU, and (b) put strict controls on the trade in equipment that it regards as having legitimate uses but which can also be misused for torture.

Included in the EC Regulation's draft list of equipment whose trade would be absolutely prohibited are death penalty equipment such as gallows, guillotines, electric chairs, airtight vaults for the administration of lethal gas, automatic drug injection systems; electric-shock belts; restraints such as leg-irons, gang-chains and shackles individual cuffs or shackle bracelets, thumb-cuffs and thumb-screws, including serrated thumb-cuffs. (355)

For the second category, which currently includes electric shock batons and shields, stun guns and tasers, tear gas and pepper spray, EU governments will strictly control the trade in order to prevent such equipment being used for capital punishment, torture or ill-treatment, "taking into account reports on any occurrences of torture in the country of destination."

Potential weaknesses in the draft EC Regulation
Amnesty International strongly supports this initiative by the EC to develop a Council Trade Regulation. It believes that the draft text of 27 January 2003 provides the framework for a comprehensive and stringent control. However Amnesty International believes that three elements of the text need to be strengthened.

Internal controls:
In its current form the draft EC Regulation would cover trade with parties outside the European Union, but not within it. Internal controls are "not considered necessary", the draft regulation says, because "capital punishment does not exist and there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."(356) Amnesty International believes that the omission of internal trade within the EU could leave scope for suppliers to seek out those export points where member states have the weakest interpretation and implementation of the Regulation. AI is also concerned that there have been reports of electroshock torture within the EU, which the draft Regulation does not seek to control.(357)

Voltage threshold for electro-shock weapons:
Under the proposed draft EC Trade Regulation, authorisation will be required from an EU committee for the export of "portable stun weapons with high frequency pulses equal to or exceeding 50,000 V …including but not limited to electric-shock batons, electric shock shields, stun guns and electric shock dart guns (tasers)". Amnesty International is concerned that the proposed thresh hold of 50,000 volts is too high a figure because even a 10,000-volt stun weapon with a high amperage could be harmful.

Transfer of torture and execution expertise:
As well as prohibiting a range of devices, the draft Regulation also prohibits "components designed or modified" for any of the banned weapons. Amnesty International welcomes the breadth of such a provision. However the organisation is concerned that the transfer of expertise or training in the techniques of torture or of capital punishment are not included within the scope of the legislation, nor are they dealt with by other EU controls. Amnesty International recommends that the training of military, security and police personnel (whether inside or outside the EU) in the techniques of torture or processes involved in capital punishment should be strictly prohibited.

Potential Positive Impact of the EC Regulation:
Despite such weaknesses in the text, which should be removed before the regulations are adopted by EU member states, the initiative is a very positive one, and one that Amnesty International believes will prove an important landmark in the combating of torture and cruelty around the world. As well as ensuring that EU trade in torture and capital punishment technology is prohibited, the EC Regulation will set an example that other states and regions could follow. The importance of this can already be seen.

In Taiwan(358) domestic use of electro-shock stun weapons is restricted, but the government has permitted exports. However, Taiwan is now considering whether the minor financial benefit gained by commercial exports is outweighed by the negative impact abroad on its human rights reputation. At a security conference held in 2003, government ministers in Taiwan, who themselves have been prisoners of conscience, expressed interest in the EC Draft Trade Regulation(359).

The draft EC Trade Regulation has already elicited much interest at the global level. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Theo van Boven, was mandated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 to investigate the trade and production of equipment designed for torture with a view to prohibition. He announced in his preliminary report in January 2003 that he intended to propose to all UN Member States a trade ban and control system on such equipment similar to that of the EC Trade Regulation.(360)

Because of the tremendous potential positive impact of such legislation it is therefore of grave concern to Amnesty International to discover that the draft Trade Regulation text has currently become mired in the bureaucracy and politics of the EU institutions.

Having spent most of 2003 in committees including the Council Working Party on human rights and the Council Working Party which deals with trade questions, the proposal is now being revised by the European Commission. The European Council was due to receive the revised proposal during March or April 2004. The Irish Presidency of the EU has stated that it will "seek to ensure that the proposal is adopted as soon as possible."(361)

But despite repeated requests from Amnesty International to the Commission officials responsible for advising on the Trade Regulation, no information on the timetable for implementation of the Regulation has been made available. Amnesty International is very concerned that EU Member States are preparing to weaken or shelve it and therefore calls upon the EU Member States, and particularly the current Presidency - Ireland - and future Presidency – the Netherlands, to ensure that a strong EC Trade Regulation is adopted and rigorously enforced as soon as possible.


EU sends mixed messages

At the same time as the EU is prevaricating over the draft EC Trade Regulations, Amnesty International is also concerned about two parallel EU trade initiatives which may be undermining existing MSP controls.

CE Quality Markings:
Despite a 1996 European Parliament resolution calling for a ban on the sale of electro-shock equipment to states where torture has been recorded, the European Commission has awarded CE quality marks for user safety for stun guns capable of delivering up to 200,000 volts.(362) In 2001 Amnesty International wrote to the European Commission on this issue, highlighting the case of a Taiwanese company some of whose electroshock products bore the CE mark. The reply denied any knowledge of the matter.(363) The European Commission has refused to publish the safety and performance reports it had received from manufacturers of electro-shock weapons, nor would the Commission identify which other companies have been granted CE certification. At the time of writing this report, the information is still not forthcoming – and companies continue to display CE marks on their electroshock products.

Suspension of importing duties:
In January 2003 the European Council approved Council Regulation EC150/2003. This regulation allows for the suspension of import duties on certain weapons and military equipment, if "the weapons or equipment concerned are used by, or on behalf of the military forces of a Member State". Included amongst the list of weapons on which duty would be suspended are: electric-shock belts and automatic drug injection systems designed or modified for the purpose of execution of human beings. In a letter to Irish MEP Prionsias De Rossa, the EC Commission explained that this suspension took place despite the fact that the use of such equipment is "not in line with Union policy and relevant international legal instruments and is therefore illegal(364)." Despite this, the trade in such equipment is still not yet illegal and indeed could even have been facilitated by the suspension of the importation duty.

Amnesty International remains concerned at such bureaucratic and administrative "anomalies" and recommends that the EC Commission position be clarified as soon as possible. Amnesty International believes that all relevant EC trade regulations for MSP equipment should be harmonised and rigorously enforced.

Key lessons to be learned

All EU and New Member States should work to strengthen and implement the draft EC Trade Regulation in order to demonstrate the EU's commitment to take action against torture. Such a measure would help the EU to fulfil its requirement under Criterion Two of the Code, which demands that security equipment should not be exported if there is a risk that it will be used for internal repression or to abuse human rights.

The text of the draft Trade Regulation should be amended to ensure that the scope of the controls include equipment transfers within the EU as well as outside the EU and that the voltage threshold above which electroshock weapons are prohibited should be much lower. The EU should also develop controls to stringently control the transfer of MSP expertise and to prohibit the transfer of skills and training of torture and execution expertise.