Right to protest, Amnesty International: Protecting protesters from the abuse of rubber bullets by police forces

ROME – In Basel, Switzerland, demonstrators gathered at the International Women’s Day, on March 8, they were indiscriminately shot by police who fired rubber bullets at them. For Anja Bienert, police and human rights expert for Amnesty Internationalthis episode suggests the global dimension of the crisis: it is increasingly common – underlines the researcher – for the police around the world to use kinetic weapons against those who demonstrate peacefully. Amnesty documents cases of violations related to the improper use of weapons in various places around the world: from Spain to France, from Colombia to Brazil, from India to Iran, from the United States to Chile.

The report. The Organization’s dossier was published on 14 March “My Eye Exploded”: the Global Abuse of Kinetic Impact Projectiles”, documents the increase in injuries and deaths caused by rubber bullets and other similar tools around the world. The violations reported by the organization are based on the United Nations principles on the use of force and firearms by the police.

The balance sheet of the improper use of weapons. The deployment of kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs) and other types of projectiles against protesters, has resulted in dozens of deaths and thousands of injuries worldwide, including those with permanent disabilities. In many cases KIPs have been used as a tool of intimidation and punishment against peaceful protesters. Given the serious impact on human rights by KIPs – writes the organization – strict regulation both nationally and globally is essential, not only regarding their adoption and their use, but also regarding their design and their trade.

Damage from rubber bullets. According to a medical literature review of articles published between 1990 and June 2017, more than 90 percent of injuries caused by KIP result in head and neck problems, eye, nerve endings, cardiovascular, lung, and chest abdominal and urogenital pain, even severe ones”. The analysis takes into consideration nearly two thousand people, 53 of whom died as a result of their injuries. Three hundred, on the other hand, suffered a permanent disability. Deaths and permanent disability often resulted from blows to the head and neck and involved metal cored KIPs. Of particular concern are eye injuries, which in multiple cases have led to rupture of the eyeball, hemorrhage and even retinal detachment with loss of vision. Other injuries include cases of concussion, skull fracture and brain injury, lacerations, bone fractures, internal organ rupture/internal bleeding, testicular trauma, perforation of the heart and lungs.

State responsibility. States have an obligation to prevent acts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Furthermore, under the International Law Commission’s (ILC) rules on liability, a State can be found guilty of certain damages occurring outside its territory if it knowingly “assists or assists another State in carrying out an act considered to be wrongful ”. The provision of material aid, such as law enforcement equipment, to a state known to use it to commit serious human rights violations, including torture or other ill-treatment, could fall into this category of liability. Companies that manufacture law enforcement equipment also have a responsibility to enforce rights, both in manufacturing and in the supply chain, right down to the use of their products and services by third parties.

Corporate responsibility. Businesses also have a responsibility to respect human rights, based on the globally endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. To this end they must avoid causing or contributing to damage to rights through their activities and, if damage occurs, cease their activities and remedy the damage. The responsibility of business enterprises to respect human rights under the UN Guiding Principles “exists regardless of the ability or willingness of States to fulfill their human rights obligations”. Companies that export equipment that risks being misused by police forces – for example – particularly in countries with low levels of compliance with international human rights law and the principles of the use of force, must make a rigorous investigation of the rights, the so-called due diligence, before proceeding with the sale.