Bearing in mind that, in its resolution 1986/10, section IX, of 21 May 1986, the Economic and Social Council requested Member States to pay particular attention to the question of the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials in the implementation of the Code, and that the General Assembly, in its resolution 41/149 of 4 December 1986, welcomed, inter alia, this recommendation of the Council, For example, the initiative stipulated that security forces and armed forces would be required to cover “collateral damage” caused by such companies in the event of unlawful use of force. 11.5. The use of force contrary to this Decree-Law shall entail civil disciplinary, criminal and administrative liability. Therefore, violence should never be used as revenge or as a form of extrajudicial punishment or in a discriminatory manner or against a person who does not resist. In addition, it is not lawful to use additional force when the need has passed, for example when a suspect is being held safely and lawfully. Discriminatory practices, such as those carried out by law enforcement officials against minorities, are clearly a violation of international law. 11.2. Where the use of force results in injury or death, the appropriate administrative inquiry shall be ordered and the competent authorities shall be informed thereof without delay. The provisions of this Legislative Decree apply to all personnel of the Peruvian National Police in a situation where force is used to defend the person, society and the State.
23. Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives shall have access to independent procedures, including judicial procedures. In the event of the death of these persons, this applies to their heirs. c. Proportionality.- The use of force is proportionate if the level of force used to achieve the legal objective pursued corresponds to the necessary resistance and danger posed by the person to intervene or to the situation to be controlled. The following basic principles, formulated to assist Member States in their efforts to ensure and promote the role of law enforcement officials, should be taken into account and respected by Governments in their respective national legislation and practices: and should be addressed to law enforcement authorities and other persons such as judges, prosecutors, lawyers, members of the executive and legislative branches and members of law enforcement agencies. The Commission is aware that it has not yet presented a proposal for a Directive on (19) Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that all law enforcement officials are trained in the use of force and subject to monitoring in accordance with appropriate assessment standards. Public servants who are required to carry firearms are not required to be authorized to do so until they have received special training as part of their employment. c. Adaptation of training plans for police personnel in accordance with this standard under the supervision of the Fundamental Rights Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
As regards the use of electric shock weapons such as the TaserTM, national case law stresses the importance of proportionality. In Armstrong v. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District ruled, “The use of a Taser against a mentally ill person who is not an offender who had spoken seconds earlier is not a proportionate response.” The Court noted that electric shock weapons “only constitute proportionate force when used in response to a situation where a reasonable officer perceives imminent danger that can be mitigated by the use of the Taser” (2016, pp. 19, 21). According to the article, the law applies to all public security forces in the country, elements of the National Guard as well as members of the armed forces who participate in police support tasks for the next five years. However, the principle of necessity is fundamental that any force used in law enforcement must not exceed the minimum required by the circumstances. This means that violent or potentially violent suspects must also be arrested or killed in very extreme cases where the use of force and lethal force is the only chance to end an immediate threat to life. In 1982, in Guerrero v. Colombia, the Human Rights Committee concluded that the State acted unlawfully by shooting at suspected terrorists instead of arresting them, as it might have done in these circumstances. In 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed in the case of Bouyid v.
Belgium (No. 23380/09) that “in the case of a person who […] In the face of law enforcement authorities, any use of physical force that is not strictly necessary for their own conduct violates human dignity and constitutes a fundamental violation of the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (paras. 88 and 100). Receive psychological counselling from the State to deal with the strains caused by the use of violence that affects the life or physical integrity of others. c. Police resources.- These are weapons, equipment, accessories and other support elements authorized or provided by the State and used by police personnel to counter a threat or attack on security, public order, integrity or life of persons. The principle of proportionality, like the use of force to enforce the law, is often misunderstood. Proportionality does not mean that law enforcement officers must use force strictly along a continuum of violence (where the level of violence gradually increases) or in response to the violence of an accused.
On the contrary, it sets an upper limit on what constitutes a lawful use of force, depending on the threat posed by one or a group of persons and the offence committed or imminent. b. Progressive and differentiated use of force.- It is the gradual adaptation and adaptation of means and methods by police personnel, taking into account the degree of cooperation, resistance or aggression represented by the person to be intervened or the situation to be controlled. To. It is the means that, at different levels, the personnel of the National Police of Peru use, within the framework of the law, to take control of a situation that constitutes a threat or threatens the security, public order, integrity or life of persons.