FACTSHEET
3.3. Prohibited use and modalities
Instruments of restraint are often directly and purposefully
used as a torture tool, or to immobilise detainees who
are then beaten or otherwise abused.
The Special Rapporteur received consistent
allegations about torture in Bata Central
Police Station in Equatorial Guinea, applied
during interrogation mostly at night in the
interrogation room in the basement. Many
interviewees explained how they had
been hung up on handcuffs, suspended in
various ways from a relatively short metal
bar between two black tables for prolonged
periods; in these positions the victims were
swung, or had heavy devices such as car
batteries placed on top of their backs.35
Beyond deliberate use for torture, the use of handcuffs
and other means of restraint during interrogation
is problematic if used to ‘soften up’ a detainee, to
intimidate or ‘break’ them in order to obtain a confession
or statement.
As the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture stressed,
‘[n]o person should be handcuffed in custody without
a valid grave security reason’,36 and the use of physical
restraints is legitimate only if lawful, necessary and
proportionate.37
Restraints should not be applied other than in
exceptional circumstances, when no other options are
available, in order to prevent the detainee from inflicting
injuries to others or themselves, or prevent escape during
a transfer.38
The revised Standard Minimum Rules clarify that
instruments of restraint are to be imposed only when
no lesser form of control would be effective to address
the risks posed by unrestricted movement, and that the
method of restraint should be the least intrusive possible.
For example, automatic resort to restraints is not called
for when a brief period of manual control combined with
de-escalation skills would suffice. Where instruments
of restraint are used, they should be imposed only
for the time period required and removed as soon as
possible after the risks posed by unrestricted movement
are no longer present.39 As the UN Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) Handbook for Prison Leaders
stresses: ‘restraints should only be used as short-term
measures for the high-risk high security prisoners’ and
a ‘continuous risk assessment will help determine the
length of time that is necessary for such measures’.40
A prisoner in Ukraine, who had gone
blind during pre-trial detention, despite
his disability and no previous attempts of
escape or signs of any violent behaviour,
was handcuffed any time he left his cell – in
addition to being escorted by three wardens
with a dog, including during family visits.41
Where the use of restraints is legitimate in principle,
the manner in which they are applied must not be
degrading or painful,42 eg. handcuffing a person
tighter than necessary, or needlessly using handcuffs
in humiliating situations (eg. in front of their family in the
visiting room).
Where devices have become hazardous due to abrasion,
they must be discarded immediately. For example,
rusty chains that cut detainees may result in infection,
including tetanus.
Furthermore, Rule 43 (2) of the revised Standard
Minimum Rules explicitly prohibits the use of instruments
of restraint as a sanction for disciplinary offences.43
According to a report of the Asian Human
Rights Commission, Jeong Phil-ho, age
40, was restrained with leather belts and
handcuffs for 466 days, from 8 March 2000
until 18 June 2001, in Gwangju and Mokpo
Penitentiaries (Republic of Korea) after
an escape from Gwangju District Court in
February 2000. The leather belts bound
the entire upper half of the inmate’s body,
and he could not freely wash, eat, sleep or
carry out any other normal human activity.
35. Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture: Mission to Equatorial Guinea, 16 December 2009, A/HRC/13/39/Add.4, para. 41.
36. Report on the 2008 visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) to Benin, 15 March 2011, CAT/OP/BEN/1, para 107.
37. Article 3, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by UNGA resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979.
38. Rule 47 (2) of the revised Standard Minimum Rules; Principle 9, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials; and
UNODC Handbook for Prison Leaders, 2010, p107.
39. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rule 48.
40. UNODC, Handbook for Prison Leaders, 2010, p107.
41. European Court of Human Rights, Averzin v Ukraine, Judgment, Fifth Section, Appl. No. 23893/03, 15 August 2012.
42. Report by the Special Rapporteur on torture to the UN ECOSOC, 23 December 2003, E/CN.4/ 2004/56, para. 45.
43. See also Report by the Special Rapporteur on torture to the UN ECOSOC, 23 December 2003, E/CN.4/ 2004/56, para. 45, and General Report on the
CPT’s activities 1991, para. 53, op.cit.
Penal Reform International | Instruments of restraint: Addressing risk factors to prevent torture and ill-treatment
|5