Traités, États parties et Commentaires
  • Print page
Commentaire of 2016 
Article 30 : Return of medical and religious personnel
Text of the provision*
(1) Personnel whose retention is not indispensable by virtue of the provisions of Article 28 shall be returned to the Party to the conflict to whom they belong, as soon as a road is open for their return and military requirements permit.
(2) Pending their return, they shall not be deemed prisoners of war. Nevertheless they shall at least benefit by all the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949. They shall continue to fulfil their duties under the orders of the adverse Party and shall preferably be engaged in the care of the wounded and sick of the Party to the conflict to which they themselves belong.
(3) On their departure, they shall take with them the effects, personal belongings, valuables and instruments belonging to them.
* Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference.
Reservations or declarations
None
Contents

  • A. Introduction
  • B. Historical background
  • C. Paragraph 1: Return to the Party to the conflict to which they belong
  • D. Paragraph 2: Status and treatment pending return
  • E. Paragraph 3: Objects which may be taken on departure
  • Select bibliography
    A. Introduction
    2222  Article 30 contains the basic rule which needs to be complied with when military medical or religious personnel (covered by Article 24) or staff of National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies or of other voluntary aid societies assisting the medical services of the armed forces (covered by Article 26) fall into enemy hands: they must be returned to the Party to the conflict to which they belong. For the sake of brevity, both categories are subsumed under the phrase ‘medical and religious personnel’ in the commentary on this article.
    2223  The purpose of this provision is to ensure that medical and religious personnel can continue to provide their services at all times to those who need them.[1] In this light, Article 30 regulates the period between their falling into enemy hands and their return to the Party to the conflict to which they belong. During this period, ‘they shall continue to fulfil their duties’.
    2224  Article 30 should be read in conjunction with two other provisions of the First Convention: Articles 28 and 31. Article 28, the exception to Article 30, allows the Party into whose hands medical or religious personnel have fallen to retain some or all of them if required by the ‘state of health, the spiritual needs and the number of prisoners of war’ detained by that Party. The principle of return in Article 30 applies both to personnel who may not be retained as of the moment they fall into enemy hands and to personnel who may initially be retained on the basis of Article 28 but who must be returned once the reasons for retaining them no longer exist.
    2225  Article 31 sets out the criteria for determining which medical or religious personnel should be returned on the basis of Article 30 and provides for the possibility for the Parties to the conflict to conclude special agreements covering the practical aspects of their retention.
    Back to top
    B. Historical background
    2226  Predecessors of the first and third paragraphs of Article 30 can be found in both the 1906 Geneva Convention[2] and the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Wounded and Sick.[3] Yet, during the First and Second World Wars, the requirement to return medical and religious personnel was rarely complied with.[4] In light of this experience, while commenting on a proposal almost identical to the current first and third paragraphs of Article 30, the 1947 Conference of Government Experts stated: ‘It should be stressed that this Article (which is applicable only to medical personnel whose retention in captivity is not indispensable …) is categorical. It therefore offers the belligerents no option to conclude agreements forgoing repatriation of Medical Personnel.’[5]
    2227  The essence of the first two sentences of Article 30(2) are to be found in the draft submitted to the 17th International Conference of the Red Cross in Stockholm in 1948.[6] The third sentence – ‘They shall continue to fulfil their duties …’ – was added by the Drafting Committee during the 1949 Diplomatic Conference, and is in line with similar wording found in Article 28.[7]
    Back to top
    C. Paragraph 1: Return to the Party to the conflict to which they belong
    1. The principle of return
    2228  When medical or religious personnel fall into enemy hands, that Party is obliged to return them to the Party to the conflict to which they belong.[8] Retaining them is only lawful if retention is ‘indispensable’ in view of the state of health, the spiritual needs and the number of prisoners of war already detained by that Party.[9] Medical and religious personnel may only be retained if a stringent threshold is met: that the medical and spiritual welfare of prisoners of war requires it.[10]
    2229  Moreover, where persons covered by Articles 24 or 26 are on the territory of a neutral Power, the latter is also under an obligation to apply Article 30 (and its related provisions in Articles 28 and 31) by analogy.[11]
    2230  According to Article 31(2), the ‘Parties to the conflict may determine by special agreement the percentage of personnel to be retained, in proportion to the number of prisoners and the distribution of the said personnel in the camps’. The absence of such an agreement, the conclusion of which is optional (‘may’), cannot be used as a pretext for failing to return personnel who are not indispensable.[12] In that case, it will be up to the Detaining Power to assess whether it may retain medical and religious personnel in line with the conditions set down in Article 28(1). While this assessment can be made unilaterally, and does not require the consent of the persons who are to be retained (nor of the Party to which they belong), it needs to be made in good faith.[13] Thus, if the medical and spiritual needs of the prisoners of war in the hands of the Detaining Power are adequately addressed, the Party to which the medical and religious personnel belong can expect them to be returned to it.[14]
    2231  The draft article submitted to the 1948 Stockholm Conference contained the following final paragraph: ‘Members of this personnel shall not be repatriated against their will.’[15] Although the sentence was not retained, the principle is still valid. A person who refuses to return acquires the status of prisoner of war and will be covered by the Third Convention. While such persons remain in enemy hands, the work they may undertake as prisoners of war is regulated by the relevant provisions of the Third Convention.[16] The Third Convention also regulates when such prisoners of war are to be released and repatriated.[17]
    2232  The obligation to return medical and religious personnel to the Party to which they belong can be triggered from the moment they fall into enemy hands.[18] This will be the case, for example, when there are no wounded or sick prisoners of war requiring treatment, or when the Detaining Power has sufficient medical personnel of its own to address the needs of the prisoners of war. The obligation can also arise at a later time, for example when wounded or sick prisoners of war have recovered and no longer need medical care.
    2233  The logic of the regime regulating the status and treatment of medical and religious personnel in enemy hands requires strict compliance with Article 30. As discussed in the commentary on Article 28, the compromise underpinning this logic was only reached after a lengthy discussion.[19] The following elements need to be kept in mind in this regard: prisoners of war may be detained until the cessation of active hostilities;[20] and during their detention, they may be compelled to undertake certain categories of work which will benefit the Detaining Power.[21] These rules do not, however, apply to medical and religious personnel in enemy hands: the mere fact that hostilities are ongoing does not constitute a ground to detain them until the cessation of active hostilities; it is only lawful to retain them if the prisoners of war have medical or spiritual needs which the Detaining Power is unable to address.[22] Thus, if there are no (or no longer) such needs, the Party into whose hands the medical or religious personnel have fallen must return them to the Party to which they belong.[23] After all, when they return to the latter Party it is with a view to resuming their medical or religious duties, which may not be considered detrimental to the interests of the adverse Party.
    2234  The Parties to the conflict may not conclude an agreement allowing for medical or religious personnel to be retained in circumstances which do not meet the conditions set out in Article 28(1). Article 30’s drafting history confirms the absolute nature of the obligation.[24]
    2235  Article 30 requires that personnel whose retention is not indispensable be returned ‘to the Party to the conflict to whom they belong’. This wording, which was already introduced in Article 12(2) of the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Wounded and Sick, differs from the wording in Article 12(2) of the 1906 Geneva Convention, whereby such personnel needed to be sent back ‘to their army or country’. The words ‘to the Party to the conflict to whom they belong’ were chosen to enable medical and religious personnel to be returned to a place where they could continue to provide their services. This precludes, for example, an Occupying Power from claiming that medical or religious personnel who have fallen into its hands have no need to leave the territory it occupies since they are already in their own country.[25] Furthermore, if the medical or religious personnel have the nationality of a State other than the State to whose armed forces they belong, they would still need to be returned to the latter. Lastly, the wording makes clear that medical and religious personnel do not necessarily need to be returned to the military unit to which they were originally attached. The mere fact that that military unit happens to be in a place where no ‘road is open for their return’ would not constitute a ground to delay their return.[26]
    2236  In the case of staff of National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies or of other voluntary aid societies assisting the medical services of the armed forces, the requirement that they be returned ‘to the Party to the conflict to whom they belong’ means that they be returned to the medical service of their State’s armed forces. Unless the Party to which they ‘belong’ so decides, Article 30 does not provide for a repatriation to their home.[27]
    2237  When the return of medical and religious personnel occurs at the same time as the repatriation of seriously wounded and sick prisoners of war on the basis of Article 109 of the Third Convention, the former may be called upon to continue to perform their functions for the benefit of the latter during the repatriation.
    Back to top
    2. Temporary delay of return
    2238  The Party into whose hands medical or religious personnel have fallen is obliged to return these persons to the Party to which they belong ‘as soon as a road is open for their return and military requirements permit’. This means that the Party may temporarily delay their return on one of the two aforementioned grounds.[28] However, it is clear from the wording adopted that this may be well before the end of active hostilities.[29]
    2239  The first ground relates to a material impossibility, i.e. no route (whether by land, water or air) is open for the return of the medical or religious personnel. This may be the case when hostilities are still ongoing and no safe alternatives exist. In line with the purpose of Articles 28 and 30 that medical and religious personnel be able to continue to use their expertise in the service of those who need it, the absence of a suitable route does not mean the return of such personnel may be delayed indefinitely. If, for example, no options exist for their safe return by means of transport over land, the Parties to the conflict should endeavour to conclude a special agreement to facilitate their return by other means, such as a cartel aircraft or ship.[30]
    2240  The second ground allows the Party to invoke ‘military requirements’ to delay the return of medical or religious personnel. The First Convention does not provide any clarification of the notion of ‘military requirements’. The term ‘requirements’, however, implies that the military reasons invoked need to be serious, not merely a matter of convenience, and of a nature to leave the Party with no other choice.[31] This stringent criterion may be fulfilled, for example, if temporarily delaying their return is the only way to prevent persons passing on to their own Party information of military value acquired while they were in enemy hands. Furthermore, the phrase ‘military requirements’ needs to be interpreted in the light of the purpose of Article 30. Thus, other than physical impediments arising from ongoing hostilities, it is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which ‘military requirements’ would justify a long-term delay in returning medical or religious personnel.
    2241  Even when one or both grounds exists, the delay may only be temporary. As soon as there is no more reason for a delay, the persons must be allowed to return. No grounds other than the two mentioned explicitly in Article 30 may be invoked as a justification for a delay.
    2242  Article 30 does not specify who has to cover the cost of transporting the medical and religious personnel to the Party to which they belong. Failing an agreement on this matter, the rules governing the transport of prisoners of war to a neutral country or the return home of civilian internees could be applied by analogy: the Party into whose hands the personnel have fallen has to pay the costs of their transportation only up to its own borders.[32] From there, the Party to whom the personnel belong must pay for their transportation to their final destination.
    Back to top
    D. Paragraph 2: Status and treatment pending return
    2243  The purpose of Article 30(2) is to settle the status and treatment of medical and religious personnel for the period between when they fall into enemy hands and when they return to the Party to which they belong. With regard to the regulatory framework which is of relevance to this period, mention must be made of the Model Agreement Relating to the Retention of Medical Personnel and Chaplains, which was drafted by the ICRC at the request of the 1949 Diplomatic Conference.[33] Article 12(1) of the Model Agreement states:
    The provisions of the present Agreement shall also apply to medical personnel and chaplains who have fallen into the hands of the adverse Party and, not having been retained, are awaiting their return in accordance with Article 30 of the First Convention. They shall be applicable as long as such personnel remain in the territory of the Party into whose hands they have fallen.
    2244  The status and treatment of medical and religious personnel will be relevant in every instance in which such persons fall into enemy hands. Even when their return takes place almost immediately, the organization of the actual departure may take a few days, for example because the practical details of the return need to be discussed with the adverse Party. This discussion can take place directly between the Parties or indirectly, for example through a neutral intermediary such as the ICRC.
    2245  The first two sentences of Article 30(2) are identical to the first two sentences of Article 28(1). Thus, the basic principles applicable to retained personnel are also applicable to those who may not (or no longer) be retained and are thus awaiting their return: while in enemy hands, they ‘shall not be deemed prisoners of war’ but ‘shall at least benefit by all the provisions’ of the Third Convention.[34]
    2246  All elements of the third sentence of Article 30(2) also appear in the third sentence of Article 28(2).[35] The latter contains more detail, however: while Article 30(2) states that medical and religious personnel are to continue to work ‘under the orders of the adverse Party’, Article 28(2) states that they shall do so ‘[w]ithin the framework of the military laws and regulations of the Detaining Power, and under the authority of its competent service’, it being understood that this is tempered by the requirement that they be able to continue to work ‘in accordance with their professional ethics’.
    2247  There are a priori no reasons why personnel awaiting their return, especially when their return is imminent, should work ‘[w]ithin the framework of the military laws and regulations of the Detaining Power’. This may change, however, if their return is delayed: in that case, the Party into whose hands they have fallen may subject them to the same regulatory framework as that applicable to retained personnel. In any event, no matter how short their stay, it is the responsibility of the Detaining Power to ensure that medical and religious personnel are, at all times, in a position to work ‘in accordance with their professional ethics’.[36]
    2248  Article 30 does not confer what Article 28(2) calls the ‘facilities for carrying out their medical or spiritual duties’ to which retained personnel are entitled on the basis of the latter provision. This is logical since personnel covered by Article 30 are awaiting their return during what should, in principle, be a short period. However, if the Party into whose hands they have fallen exercises its right to delay their return temporarily, they will find themselves in a situation analogous to that of retained personnel. Hence, to the extent such personnel are asked to perform their medical or spiritual duties during that period, they should equally receive all ‘facilities for carrying out’ those duties.[37] In line with this general principle, it is clear that, when they are asked to perform their duties, they shall be paid on the same basis as retained personnel.[38]
    2249  The reference to ‘their duties’ in Article 30(2) implies that the work medical and religious personnel may be asked to perform pending their return can only be of a medical or religious nature.[39] Thus, when there is no work of such a nature, they may not be required to work at all. If medical or religious personnel covered by Article 30 genuinely volunteer to work in these circumstances, they must benefit by all the relevant provisions of the Third Convention.[40]
    2250  According to the third sentence of Article 30(2), personnel covered by Article 30 are ‘preferably’ to be engaged in the care of the wounded and sick of the Party to the conflict to which they themselves belong.[41] This sentence is the corollary, in the First Convention, of Article 30(3) of the Third Convention, according to which ‘[p]risoners of war shall have the attention, preferably, of medical personnel of the Power on which they depend and, if possible, of their nationality’. As indicated by the word ‘preferably’, this is only a recommendation. At all times, as medical professionals, persons covered by Article 30 must act in accordance with medical ethics, which require them to dispense medical care based on actual needs and not on the nationality of the victims. Should the persons covered by Article 26 work for a National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society, the same requirement also flows from the Fundamental Principle of impartiality.[42] Use of the word ‘preferably’ also implies that the Party to the conflict into whose hands the medical and religious personnel have fallen is entitled to direct them to take care of the medical needs of the wounded and sick of a Party other than that in whose service they were.
    Back to top
    E. Paragraph 3: Objects which may be taken on departure
    2251  Article 30(3) addresses a practicality with regard to the return of medical and religious personnel who have fallen into enemy hands. This paragraph only appears in Article 30, i.e. in connection with persons who may not be retained. Logically, however, the provision is also relevant to persons initially retained on the basis of Article 28 when they return to the Party to the conflict to which they belong.
    2252  First, when leaving, medical and religious personnel who have fallen into enemy hands are entitled to take ‘the effects, personal belongings [and] valuables … belonging to them’.[43] The words ‘belonging to them’ mean that these ‘effects, personal belongings [and] valuables’ must be their private property.[44] Thus, objects they were carrying with them at the time they fell into enemy hands, yet which are the property of the Party to which they belong or of a voluntary aid society, do not qualify on the basis of this provision. These objects cannot be taken with them on their departure.
    2253  Second, when leaving, medical and religious personnel are entitled to take with them the ‘instruments belonging to them’. The ‘instruments’ referred to must be understood to include the personnel’s medical instruments,[45] as well as instruments needed for the celebration of religious services. Also here, the words ‘belonging to them’ necessarily imply that this is restricted to their private property, i.e. objects given to them by the Power on which they depend for the exercise of their medical duties cannot be taken with them on their departure.
    2254  With regard to the objects of a medical or religious nature which cannot be taken with them on their departure, the logic underpinning Articles 33(2) and 35(2) can arguably be considered applicable mutatis mutandis. Thus, while they remain in enemy hands, they must continue to be used for the care of the wounded and sick.
    2255  Unlike Article 32(4), Article 30(3) does not include the ‘arms and if possible the means of transport belonging to them’ in the list of objects that medical and religious personnel may take with them. The absence of such an entitlement applies to any type of arms which they may have had on or with them at the time they fell into enemy hands, including: (i) the weapons which they were carrying for their own self-defence or for the defence of the wounded and sick in their charge; and (ii) the arms taken from the wounded and sick prior to their falling into enemy hands.[46] This is logical: Article 32 applies to persons covered by Article 27 (i.e. staff of a recognized society of a neutral country when they assist the medical service of a Party to an international armed conflict) when they fall into the hands of the enemy of the Party they were assisting. These persons can neither be detained nor retained, and remain staff working for a recognized society of a neutral country; they are not the enemy of the Party into whose hands they have fallen. As a result, that Party has no grounds for keeping their arms and means of transport.[47] As for medical and religious personnel covered by Article 30, their arms and means of transport (such as ambulances) are typical examples of booty of war. Thus, the ownership of these objects immediately passes to the enemy into whose hands they have fallen.
    Back to top
    Select bibliography
    See the select bibliography of the commentary on Article 28 of the First Convention.

    1 - Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, p. 69. See also Minutes of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, Committee I, Vol. II, p. 140. Similarly, see United States, Law of War Manual, 2015, para. 4.10.2.
    2 - See Geneva Convention (1906), Article 12.
    3 - See Geneva Convention on the Wounded and Sick (1929), Article 12.
    4 - Report of the Preliminary Conference of National Societies of 1946, p. 32. Similarly, see Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, p. 38, and Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, p. 66. See also Pictet, 1949, p. 873 (in relation to the First World War), and pp. 876–877 (in relation to the Second World War), and Vollmar, p. 746.
    5 - Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, p. 38.
    6 - See Draft Conventions submitted to the 1948 Stockholm Conference, p. 18, draft article 23.
    7 - Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, p. 127.
    8 - Article 30 applies to all categories of persons covered by Articles 24 and 26. The idea of limiting the requirement of return to doctors and nurses only (to the detriment of, for example, ‘staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments’) was unsuccessful; see Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, p. 81.
    9 - See Article 28(1) of the First Convention and Article 33(1) of the Third Convention.
    10 - See the commentary on Article 28, section C.
    11 - See the commentary on Article 4, para. 937. See also United States, Law of War Manual, 2015, para. 15.16.6.
    12 - Minutes of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, Committee I, Vol. II, Tome 1, p. 186.
    13 - For a discussion of an unsuccessful proposal made in this regard, see the Proceedings of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1929, p. 150.
    14 - In this regard, the Detaining Power has the primary responsibility of ensuring that the medical and spiritual needs of the prisoners of war are taken care of; see Article 28(4). On the question of whether medical and religious personnel can be retained to address the medical and spiritual needs of prisoners of war of a nationality other than their own, see the commentary on Article 28, para. 2184.
    15 - Draft Conventions submitted to the 1948 Stockholm Conference, p. 18, draft article 23.
    16 - These include Article 32 (prisoners engaged on medical duties) and Article 36 (prisoners who are ministers of religion), but also the general provisions regulating the type of work which all prisoners of war may be required to do. Thus, within the limits of Article 49 and subsequent articles of the Third Convention, such prisoners of war may also be required to do work of a non-medical nature.
    17 - See Third Convention, Article 118, along with its related provisions.
    18 - For an analysis of the term ‘fall into enemy hands’, see the commentary on Article 14, section C.3.
    19 - See the commentary on Article 28, para. 2158.
    20 - See Third Convention, Article 118.
    21 - See Third Convention, Articles 49–57.
    22 - On the prohibition of ‘anticipatory’ retention, as well as on the prohibition of retaining medical and religious personnel to meet the medical and religious needs of civilians, see the commentary on Article 28, para. 2164.
    23 - For an example, see ICRC, Annual Report 1972, ICRC, Geneva, 1973, p. 51.
    24 - Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, p. 38. See also Minutes of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, Committee I, Vol. II, Tome 1, p. 185 (in particular, United States). This differs from Article 32(2); see the commentary on Article 32, section D.
    25 - Des Gouttes, Commentaire de la Convention de Genève de 1929 sur les blessés et malades, ICRC, 1930, p. 81; Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, ICRC, 1952, p. 262.
    26 - In the text adopted by the 11th International Conference of the Red Cross in Geneva in 1923, and which served as the basis for the discussions during the 1929 Diplomatic Conference, the section on this point read that the persons in question must be returned to the (translation) ‘military authority to whom they belong’; see Proceedings of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1929, p. 18, draft article 12(2). For the discussion which led to the modification as it appears in Article 30(2), see the Proceedings of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1929, p. 154.
    27 - Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-B, p. 220.
    28 - While phrased slightly differently, Article 32(1) uses substantively identical grounds with regard to persons covered by Article 27 who fall into the hands of the enemy of the Party they were assisting.
    29 - See also the commentary on Article 5, paras 948–949.
    30 - The Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (2009), Rule 1(g), defines a ‘cartel aircraft’ as ‘an aircraft granted safe conduct by agreement between the Belligerent Parties for the purpose of performing a specific function, such as the transport of prisoners of war or parlementaires’.
    31 - See United States, Law of War Manual, 2015, para. 2.2.2.2.
    32 - Third Convention, Article 116; Fourth Convention, Article 135(1).
    33 - For the background and current status of this Model Agreement, see the commentary on Article 28, para. 2159.
    34 - For the meaning of these terms, see the commentary on Article 28, sections D.1 and D.2.
    35 - See also Article 32(3), applicable to persons covered by Article 27 who have fallen into the hands of the enemy of the Party they were assisting.
    36 - For the meaning of the words ‘in accordance with their professional ethics’, see the commentary on Article 28, paras 2157 and 2183.
    37 - Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, Vol. II-A, p. 128 (Canada). See also Jean-Pierre Schoenholzer, ‘Le médecin dans les Conventions de Genève de 1949’, Revue internationale de la Croix-Rouge et Bulletin international des Sociétés de la Croix-Rouge, Vol. 35, Nos 410/411, February/March 1953, p. 178.
    38 - For the payment to which retained personnel are entitled, see the commentary on Article 28, paras 2178 and 2195, and the relevant provisions of the Third Convention (in particular Articles 54 and 62).
    39 - This is also the case for retained personnel (see the commentary on Article 28, section D.3) and for persons covered by Article 27 who have fallen into the hands of the adversary of the State they were assisting (see the commentary on Article 32, para. 2304).
    40 - See, in particular, Third Convention, Articles 49–57.
    41 - Substantively identical terminology can be found in Articles 28(2) and 30(2) of the First Convention, as well as in Article 33(2) of the Third Convention. During the 1929 Diplomatic Conference, this language was questioned, yet in the end maintained. See Proceedings of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1929, p. 149 (New Zealand); see also p. 149 (Egypt), and p. 155 (United States). See also the statement of Paul Des Gouttes, p. 160. Despite these reservations, in the end the majority voted in favour of this wording; see Proceedings of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1929, p. 162. No explanation was recorded as to why the majority voted the way it did.
    42 - For the role of the Fundamental Principles in general, and the formulation of the Fundamental Principle of impartiality in particular, see the commentary on Article 26, paras 2087–2091.
    43 - With regard to the personal property of prisoners of war, see Third Convention, Article 18. There is some redundancy in the list provided in Article 30(3): ‘effects’ and ‘personal belongings’ mean the same thing, see Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 456. Similarly, ‘valuables’ (defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1598, as ‘small valuable items of personal property’) are but a subcategory of ‘effects’.
    44 - See ibid. p. 124, which defines ‘belong to’ both as ‘be the property of’ and as ‘be the rightful possession of; be due to’. One can be the rightful possessor of an object without having a property title over it.
    45 - See Proceedings of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1906, p. 55, at which the changes (to the 1864 Geneva Convention) suggested by the Swiss Federal Council were clarified in this sense. See, similarly, p. 117.
    46 - For some of the conditions which may not be considered as depriving medical and religious personnel of the protection to which they are entitled on the basis of these provisions, see Articles 22(1) and 22(3), and the commentaries on Article 24, section F, and Article 26, para. 40.
    47 - For details, see the commentary on Article 32, section F.