Treaties, States Parties and Commentaries
  • Print page
Commentary of 2020 
Article 25 : Quarters
Text of the provision*
(1) Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.
(2) The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.
(3) The premises provided for the use of prisoners of war individually or collectively, shall be entirely protected from dampness and adequately heated and lighted, in particular between dusk and lights out. All precautions must be taken against the danger of fire.
(4) In any camps in which women prisoners of war, as well as men, are accommodated, separate dormitories shall be provided for them.
* Paragraph numbers have been added for ease of reference.
Reservations or declarations
None
Contents

A. Introduction
2069  Article 25 lays down the standards for the living quarters of prisoners of war. It should be recalled that the internment of prisoners of war serves to restrict their movement within a certain perimeter; it is not to be equated with a penitentiary regime.[1] Prisoners of war must be allowed to move around within that perimeter, with a certain level of self-organization. They must be accommodated in quarters, not cells.[2] The standards for their living quarters were developed based on this understanding.
2070  Article 25(1) requires that the conditions under which prisoners of war are quartered make allowance for their ‘habits and customs’, and Article 25(4) requires the Detaining Power to provide separate dormitories for women. While variations are thus permitted and sometimes even required by Article 25, the Detaining Power must ensure that the conditions under which all prisoners are quartered are ‘as favourable’ as those for its own forces, and in no case prejudicial to the health of the prisoners.
Back to top
B. Historical background
2071  The 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War contained an analogous provision on quarters. While insisting that prisoners’ accommodation ‘afford all possible safeguards as regards hygiene and salubrity’, the Convention also set as the basic standard that conditions ‘[a]s regards dormitories, their total area, minimum cubic air space, fittings and bedding material, … be the same as for the depot troops of the detaining Power’.[3]
2072  It proved difficult for any of the belligerents to fully respect this provision during the Second World War.[4] The discussions during the Conference of Government Experts in 1947 focused on several key concerns about the accommodation afforded to prisoners of war during the Second World War. Those concerns included the conditions of accommodation, the size of dormitories, fixed time limits within which prisoner-of-war camps should fulfil the conditions laid down by the Third Convention, and perhaps most importantly, the standards against which the accommodation requirements were to be judged.[5]
2073  As the Second World War had demonstrated, some armed forces were accustomed to living conditions that some participants at the Conference deemed excessively harsh for prisoners of war to have to endure. Pure, formal equality with the living conditions of the Detaining Power’s armed forces as the sole standard was thus seen as potentially problematic. Nonetheless, permitting standards to fall short of equality (as a minimum), whatever the reason or rationale, was also considered unacceptable. At the same time, the idea that a Detaining Power might be required to treat prisoners of war better than its own forces also raised concerns.[6]
2074  The suggestion of appending an annex to the Convention setting out detailed standards was rejected in favour of a self-contained article maintaining the principle of assimilation,[7] nuanced by the obligation to ‘make allowance for the manners and customs of the prisoners’ and to ensure that conditions ‘in no case be prejudicial to their health’.[8]
Back to top
C. Paragraph 1: General conditions
1. Basic standard of quarters
2075  The first sentence of Article 25(1) sets the basic standard for accommodation of prisoners of war, which is that the Detaining Power must provide prisoners with quarters that are ‘as favourable as those of the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area’. This standard is nuanced and balanced by the obligations on the Detaining Power to make allowance for the ‘habits and customs of the prisoners’ and to ensure that accommodation is ‘in no case prejudicial to their health’. The ultimate benchmark against which accommodation must be measured is that it may never be prejudicial to the physical or mental health of the prisoner of war, the ordinary meaning of the term ‘prejudicial’ being ‘harmful’ or ‘detrimental’.[9] The requirement to provide adequate shelter to persons deprived of their liberty is also part of customary international law.[10] Affording conditions of internment that are such as to wilfully cause great suffering or serious injury to the body or health of a prisoner of war constitutes a grave breach of the Convention.[11] As provided for in Article 126, representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers, should any be appointed, and of the ICRC are entitled to visit all places where prisoners of war may be, including their quarters, in order to supervise the application of the Convention.
2076  The starting point in assessing whether the quarters afforded to prisoners of war meet the required standards is to compare them with those of the forces of the detaining State billeted in the same area. Many armed forces have seen significant developments in this area since the adoption of the Conventions, affecting the interpretation of this provision. One issue is that there are potentially wide disparities in the accommodation available to the armed forces of the Detaining Power, particularly when it comes to ‘depot’ troops.[12] For instance, in some military bases, personnel are billeted in single rooms in state-of-the-art accommodation blocks equipped with air conditioning, televisions and internet access, while in others, they may share rooms or sleep in dormitories. Or there may be a mixture of accommodation on the same base, some designated for permanent personnel and some for transitory personnel. Equality does not mean that the accommodation for prisoners of war must meet the standard of the best available to the armed forces of the Detaining Power in the area (for instance, the latter might be a mixture of single occupancy and dormitory accommodation, as well as individual and shared bathing and cooking facilities). It must, however, be at least of the standard that the Detaining Power is genuinely using to accommodate a significant number of its own forces, while noting that Article 25 appears to be based on the presumption that the accommodation provided to prisoners of war will generally be dormitory style. If the Detaining Power has no other forces in the area, one reasonable benchmark would be the accommodation provided to the camp’s military guards.
2077  Another matter to consider is whether the Detaining Power has made allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners of war.[13] For example, in some cultures the prisoners’ religious affiliations may need to be taken into account in how they are quartered. It is the customs and habits of the prisoners of war in general that prevail, and not those of each prisoner. Whatever the case, the accommodation must not be prejudicial to the prisoners’ health.
Back to top
2. Quarters ‘as favourable’ and not prejudicial or harmful to health
2078  In assessing whether the quarters afforded to prisoners of war are ‘as favourable’ as those of the Detaining Power’s own forces stationed in the same area, it is necessary to consider such factors as whether the prisoners are sufficiently protected against rain, heat, cold, pests or other threats to their health. Since the end of the Second World War, prisoners of war have been housed in a variety of facilities, ranging from disused army barracks to prefabricated or quickly constructed ‘purpose-built’ facilities or even tents. One way of meeting the standard ‘as favourable as those of the forces of the Detaining Power’ has been to accommodate prisoners of war in empty barracks. It is not necessarily the case that permanent constructions offer better protection and are more favourable than temporary ones. Accommodating prisoners of war in tents may be acceptable if the tents are able to withstand the prevailing environmental conditions,[14] such as cold, snow or monsoon rains, and if members of the forces of the Detaining Power in the same area do not enjoy more favourable accommodation.
2079  To meet the requirement that the conditions in which prisoners of war are quartered may not be prejudicial to their health, a Detaining Power may engage the services of a doctor or other suitably qualified person. This is a relative factor that may vary according to the circumstances, the location and the prisoner concerned, and diversity factors such as gender, age and disability must be duly considered.[15] Even if the quarters assigned to prisoners of war correspond in all respects to the living conditions of the armed forces of the Detaining Power and are adapted to the prisoners’ habits and customs, they should be visited periodically by a doctor or other qualified person to check that they are not in any way detrimental to the health of the occupants.[16]
2080  In considering the living conditions of prisoner-of-war camps during the international armed conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission applied the standard set out in Article 13, namely whether acts or omissions were ‘seriously endangering’ the health of the prisoners of war, rather than the standard of Article 25, namely whether the internment conditions were ‘prejudicial to the health’ of the prisoners.[17] This was ostensibly to avoid focusing on ‘minor or transitory’ violations.[18] In light of the former, the Claims Commission required claimants to produce credible evidence that ‘portrays a serious violation’, that ‘is cumulative and is reinforced by the similarity of the critical allegations’ and that ‘shows that the violation existed over a period of time long enough to justify the conclusion that it seriously endangered the health of at least some of the [prisoners of war] in the camp’.[19] It must be underscored that none of these elements are laid down in Article 25. Even if judicial bodies focus on ‘serious’ violations, Article 25 requires Detaining Powers to accommodate prisoners of war in conditions that are not prejudicial or harmful to their health, and not only to avoid conditions that are life-threatening. Article 25 is violated even by ‘minor or transitory’ violations and corrective steps may need to be taken so that such violations are not repeated; a Party does not need to wait for them to accumulate to react.
2081  During the drafting of Article 25, there was discussion about developing an annex to the Convention containing details on the conditions in which prisoners were to be accommodated. However, the idea was abandoned on the basis that it would not be flexible enough to take account of the exigencies of the situations in which the Detaining Power and the prisoners might find themselves.[20]
2082  When settling on the appropriate degree of flexibility, the delegates attending the Diplomatic Conference in 1949 concluded that the principle of assimilation should constitute the starting point, measuring the quarters afforded to prisoners of war against the standard afforded to forces of the Detaining Power billeted in the same area.[21] The Conference nevertheless recognized that the principle of assimilation was not fully adequate because of the diverse living conditions to which armed forces are accustomed. The second sentence of Article 25(1) therefore states that allowance must be made for the habits and customs of the prisoners. This sentence indicates an upward exemption to the principle of assimilation in that it guarantees certain rights to prisoners of war, irrespective of the standards or conditions applicable to members of the armed forces of the Detaining Power.[22] However, it would be unacceptable to cite the fact that prisoners of war are accustomed to a lower standard of living in their own country as justification for deviating from the principle of assimilation provided for in the first sentence.
2083  The cells in which prisoners of war may undergo disciplinary punishment or pretrial confinement must also conform to the sanitary conditions provided for in Article 25, i.e. they must not be prejudicial to the prisoner’s health.[23]
2084  Quarters are frequently constructed by the prisoners of war themselves, on sites designated by the Detaining Power and with materials provided by it. There is no difference between this and other work which prisoners may be compelled to do pursuant to Article 50. The prisoners concerned will naturally have a special interest, but the work is nevertheless done on behalf of the Detaining Power and must therefore be paid for by that Power in the same way as other work specified in Article 50. This need not necessarily apply in the case of improvements carried out by prisoners to their quarters if the latter already meet the minimum standards set by the Convention.[24]
2085  Although not expressly stated in Article 25, the time frame within which quarters of a suitable standard in camps must be provided is as soon as practicable.[25] What that means in practice would be judged on what is reasonable in the circumstances, considering the resources available to the Detaining Power and any offers of assistance from impartial humanitarian organizations.
2086  Examples of conditions that have, in the circumstances, been found to violate Article 25 include accommodation consisting of plastic sheeting supported by wooden poles, [26] rooms in which prisoners of war cannot stand upright[27] and quarters that are underground or windowless.[28]
2087  In conjunction with the relative factors of Article 25(1), which require consideration of the living conditions afforded to the armed forces of the Detaining Power, the customs and habits of the prisoners of war and their state of health, there are also objective factors that are relevant to the standard of the accommodation. Some of those standards are referred to in Article 25(3): adequate heating, lighting, freedom from dampness, and protection against fire.
Back to top
D. Paragraph 2: Dormitories
2088  The conditions in which the forces of the Detaining Power are quartered are also important in interpreting the provisions concerning prisoners’ dormitories – particularly the total surface area and minimum space and volume per person, the general installations and facilities, and bedding and blankets. The reference in Article 25 to cubic space makes clear that it is not only floor space that matters, but also the availability of enough breathable air and room to stand upright. Overcrowding, poor sanitation[29] and an insufficient number of blankets[30] have in certain cases been found to be violations of Article 25.
2089  The Third Convention does not set a minimum requirement in terms of the floor space per person necessary to avoid overcrowding. The standards should be taken by reference to those applicable for the Detaining Power’s own forces, provided these are not prejudicial to the health of the prisoners. Several factors will be relevant to determining whether the space is sufficient, including the length of time the prisoner spends in a particular camp, the amount of time spent outdoors and out of dormitories, and the amount and quality of communal spaces. At a minimum, there must be enough space for a prisoner to stretch out fully and to sleep without being disturbed by the movements of other prisoners; to store their personal property, and to move around and get dressed. Depending on the communal spaces available, the dormitories may also be used for intellectual, educational or recreational activities, and in such cases be adequate for such purposes.[31]
2090  Overcrowding of dormitories or communal areas, such as dining and sanitation facilities, can have an adverse impact on prisoners’ physical and mental health. In international armed conflicts since the Second World War where there have been large numbers of prisoners of war, camps have often been overcrowded. In some cases, prisoners had only one square metre or less of floor space per person.[32] Such overcrowding may become dangerous and put the health of the prisoners at serious risk.[33] Attempts to reduce overcrowding must not be at the expense of the other obligations of the Detaining Power, such as providing adequate sanitation facilities. In this respect, the ICRC or other impartial humanitarian organization can provide guidance.[34]
2091  Prisoners of war must also receive at least as many blankets and the same or equivalent bedding as the forces of the Detaining Power stationed in the same area. However, in line with the Convention’s approach of adopting a nuanced principle of assimilation, the fact that a Detaining Power’s own forces make do with few blankets does not necessarily justify limiting prisoners of war to only that number. As mentioned, Article 25 requires a Detaining Power to make allowance for the habits and customs of prisoners of war and the conditions must never be harmful to the prisoners’ health. Where the Detaining Power is unable to supply additional bedding and/or blankets for prisoners of war and the prisoners’ health would suffer as a result, it must take appropriate measures, which could include requesting or accepting that an impartial humanitarian organization provide them.[35] In all other circumstances, it should consider offers to provide such assistance in good faith.[36]
2092  It is reasonable to expect that prisoners be provided with separate beds so that they do not have to share. It would also seem reasonable to expect that the standards of dormitories and communal facilities, such as toilets, washing and laundry spaces, and eating areas, match those of the staff who run the camp.[37]
Back to top
E. Paragraph 3: Specific requirements
2093  Article 25(3) deals with the facilities and conditions in the camp and dormitories. It reinforces the obligation to afford prisoners of war conditions conducive to well-being, such as adequate heating, lighting and the absence of dampness.[38] The specified conditions should not be seen as exhaustive as there are other factors that are relevant, such as adequate ventilation and appropriate sanitary and environmental standards, as well as protection from the vagaries of the weather, from vermin and vector-borne diseases, from hazardous building materials such as asbestos, and from the dangers of hostilities.
2094  When it comes to heating (or excessive heat) and ventilation, ICRC experience visiting prisoner-of-war camps since the Second World War has shown that the same facilities may be adequate for certain periods of the year and not others. There is therefore a need to conduct rolling assessments and to adapt facilities to new or changing circumstances, including those brought about by seasonal change, be it heat or cold, wet or dry, monsoon, floods or drought. Thus, heaters and fans should be provided when necessary.
2095  Access to natural light during the daytime is critical for maintaining physical and mental health. In addition, adequate lighting must be provided between dusk and lights out so that prisoners may make the most of their leisure time, including for reading. Sanitary facilities must also be appropriately lit. During sleeping hours, lighting should be adjusted to ensure the conditions necessary for sleep.
2096  The ICRC has observed that in post-Second World War conflicts, in some camps hosting large numbers of prisoners of war, the prisoners themselves were given control of the lighting and heating or cooling systems in their dormitories. This enables them to manage their living conditions in a way that is conducive to their own comfort and health.
2097  The issue of lighting also arises, however, in connection with the prevention of escape attempts. This mainly involves the lighting of walls and fences, for instance by means of searchlights installed in watchtowers. The Detaining Power is at liberty to take the relevant precautions and to illuminate not only walls and fences, but also the outsides of buildings, the yard, etc. Such lighting should not, however, disturb the prisoners’ rest.[39]
2098  The final sentence of Article 25(3) requires the Detaining Power to take all precautions to protect prisoners of war from the danger of fire. Basic firefighting equipment such as fire extinguishers or sandboxes or sandbags must be always accessible. Other safety measures could include installing fire and smoke alarms and firefighting equipment; ensuring that accommodation structures and surrounding areas are not at high risk of fire and that electrical installations are safe; and putting in place an evacuation plan.[40] These measures are important because fire is one of the main causes of death in detention facilities.
Back to top
F. Paragraph 4: Dormitories for women prisoners of war
2099  Article 25(4) requires that women be provided with separate dormitories. It was introduced as a result of experiences in the Second World War and reinforces the obligations in Article 14(2) concerning the treatment of women.[41] The separation has to be effective,[42] meaning that men prisoners must not have access to the dormitories of women, either with or without their consent.
2100  This paragraph refers only to dormitories; the quarters as a whole need not necessarily be separated.[43] The Detaining Power may provide entirely separate quarters for women prisoners of war if it deems fit and in order to more easily fulfil the other requirements of the Convention with regard to women. It would be prudent for the Detaining Power to consider the habits and customs of the armed forces to which the women belong and, in any event, to consult them regarding the need for or desirability of further segregation. Moreover, in situations where the number of women prisoners is low, care must be taken to avoid isolating them from their fellow prisoners. In all circumstances, the Detaining Power must be guided by the overarching obligations to ensure the humane treatment and safety of the prisoners, to provide living conditions that are not prejudicial to their health and to take into account their habits and customs.
2101  Article 29 furthermore requires that separate sanitary facilities (‘conveniences’) be provided for women in any camps in which they are accommodated. Women prisoners of war must have regular and safe access to separate toilets and shower facilities, and to sufficient and suitable sanitary products for their periods and other basic hygienic needs free of charge.[44] In this regard, the Detaining Power needs to be mindful of the different effects that certain conditions may have on women and men, such as the non-provision of certain sanitary products or the lack of functioning sanitary facilities.[45]
2102  Consistent with the second part of Article 14(2), measures taken to comply with paragraph 4 must not, however, lead to a diminution of other rights of men or women prisoners of war.[46] Articles 97 and 108, on disciplinary and judicial punishment respectively, require that women prisoners of war undergoing such punishment be placed under the immediate supervision of women. The same logic dictates that in camps where women are accommodated, the Detaining Power must ensure that they can be supervised by women. This requirement is found in Additional Protocol I and in customary international law.[47]
2103  In the event infants or very young children are present in prisoner-of-war camps (for instance, because they are born there), they must be accommodated with their parents.[48] This requirement is also part of customary international law.[49] As far as possible, alternatives to prisoner-of-war camps should be found for parents and their children. The Detaining Power may, for example, consider repatriating prisoners of war with infants or young children. Furthermore, in the event children, meaning persons under 18, are captured as prisoners of war, they must be accommodated separately from adults, except where families are accommodated as a unit.[50] In all determinations concerning children, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration.[51]
2104  Lastly, it should be noted that the requirement of separate dormitories may also extend to other categories of persons with distinct needs or facing particular risks where not doing so would violate the obligation of humane treatment.
Back to top
Select bibliography
Aeschlimann, Alain, ‘Protection of detainees: ICRC action behind bars’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 857, March 2005, pp. 83–122.
Bretonnière, Maurice, L’application de la Convention de Genève aux prisonniers français en Allemagne durant la seconde guerre mondiale (typewritten thesis), Paris, 1949.
Levie, Howard S., Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict, International Law Studies, U.S. Naval War College, Vol. 59, 1978, pp. 124–126.
Maia, Catherine, Kolb, Robert and Scalia, Damian, La Protection des Prisonniers de Guerre en Droit International Humanitaire, Bruylant, Brussels, 2015.
Sanna, Silvia, ‘Treatment of Prisoners of War’, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta and Marco Sassòli (eds), The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 977–1011, at 996–997.

1 - For further details, see the commentary on Article 21, section C.1.
2 - For more details on the general prohibition of close confinement, see ibid. section C.3.
3 - Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929), Article 10.
4 - Bretonnière, p. 96.
5 - See Report of the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, pp. 134–138.
6 - See ibid. p. 134.
7 - For a general discussion of the principle of assimilation, see Introduction, section A.3.c.
8 - This wording was retained by the 17th International Conference of the Red Cross in Stockholm in 1948, except that ‘manners’ was replaced by ‘habits’; see Draft Conventions adopted by the 1948 Stockholm Conference, p. 61.
9 - Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 1132. See also the commentary on Article 13, section C.2.
10 - See ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2005), Rule 118.
11 - See the commentaries on Article 130, section D.5, and on Article 13, section C.2. See also Prlić Trial Judgment, 2013, Vol. 3, paras 59–67, 210–217 and 1144–1150.
12 - The term ‘depot’ refers to ‘a place where recruits are trained or troops assembled’; Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th edition, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 385.
13 - Various armed forces draw on the expertise of cultural advisers, which is crucial in gaining an understanding of the human and cultural environments in which they operate. Such advisers should be able to provide guidance on the customs and affiliations of the prisoners of war in question. However, operational contexts often involve a diverse range of populations and cultures, and a Detaining Power may have to administer prisoners of war of differing national, ethnic, religious and other affiliations.
14 - Note that, according to Article 22, prisoners of war who have been interned in areas where the climate is injurious to them must be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.
15 - For a general discussion of the protection of different categories of prisoners with distinct needs, see Introduction, section A.3.b.
16 - This may include visits by medical professionals, water and sanitation experts, among others. On the obligation to ensure the cleanliness and healthfulness of camps, see Article 29(1), and on the obligation to conduct regular medical examinations of prisoners of war, see Article 31. Inspections and examinations undertaken under Articles 29(1) and 31 will help to assess whether prisoners’ quarters are not prejudicial to their health, as required under Article 25.
17 - Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, para. 87.
18 - Ibid. para. 88.
19 - Ibid. para. 90, and Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, para. 90.
20 - See Draft Conventions submitted to the 1948 Stockholm Conference, pp. 68–69.
21 - Ibid. pp. 69–70. The principle of assimilation concerning accommodation had been the accepted standard in Article 10 of the 1929 Convention; see para. 2071 of this commentary.
22 - See Introduction, para. 36.
23 - Articles 97(2) and 103(3). For prisoners of war serving judicial sentences, see the commentary on Article 108(1), section C.3. The safeguards listed in Article 97 are also articulated in Rules 42–43 of the non-binding Mandela Rules (2015).
24 - Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention, ICRC, 1960, pp. 193–194.
25 - Maia/Kolb/Scalia, p. 263.
26 - See Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, para. 95.
27 - Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, para. 93.
28 - Ibid. para. 98.
29 - Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, para. 97. In relation to the Embakala Camp, the Commission found that the combination of being housed in ‘one small building composed of corrugated metal sheets … [with a] roof so low that inmates could not stand erect … [and where] [p]risoners who suffered from diarrhoea were forced to relieve themselves in the overcrowded quarters’ constituted clear and convincing evidence and ‘a prima facie case of serious violations … of required health-related conditions’; Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, para. 93.
30 - Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, para. 94.
31 - On these pursuits, see Article 38.
32 - This contrasts with some international standards. See e.g. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), Living space per prisoner in prison establishments: CPT standards, Strasbourg, 15 December 2015. The CPT’s basic ‘rule of thumb’ for the minimum amount of living space that each prisoner should be afforded in a cell is 6 square metres for a single-occupancy cell and 4 square metres per person in a multiple-occupancy cell. These standards relate specifically to prison establishments, and prisoners of war who are not undergoing disciplinary or judicial punishment may not be confined in cells. However, they could provide guidance on the minimum amount of living space that dormitories of prisoners of war should afford, wherever circumstances permit, on the grounds that the treatment they receive be at least equal to that enjoyed by prisoners in the criminal detention system.
33 - Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 2003, paras 93–94.
34 - See e.g. ICRC, Towards Humane Prisons: A Principled and Participatory Approach to Prison Planning and Design, ICRC, Geneva, April 2018; Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons, ICRC, Geneva, February 2013; and Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons: Supplementary Guidance, ICRC, Geneva, April 2012.
35 - See Introduction, para. 114.
36 - See the commentary on Article 9, section C.4.b, in particular, para. 1357.
37 - See Articles 26(5) and 29. United Kingdom, Joint Doctrine Captured Persons, 2015, p. 2-6, para. 211(d), states that ‘[a]s a minimum the [health and hygiene] conditions should be of the same standard as those for [the UK] Armed Forces who are collocated’.
38 - The requirements set out in Article 25 correspond to international standards for the treatment of prisoners, as, for example, set out in Rule 13 of the non-binding Mandela Rules (2015): ‘All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.’
39 - Another issue related to the measures of security and control adopted by the Detaining Power concerns the use of closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring systems. For a discussion of this, see the commentary on Article 14, paras 1675–1677.
40 - See also ICRC, Towards Humane Prisons: A Principled and Participatory Approach to Prison Planning and Design, ICRC, Geneva, April 2018; Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons, ICRC, Geneva, February 2013; and Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Habitat in Prisons: Supplementary Guidance, ICRC, Geneva, April 2012, p. 34.
41 - See the commentary on Article 14, section D.
42 - Maia/Kolb/Scalia, p. 264.
43 - In comparison, see Article 108(2), which requires women prisoners of war undergoing confinement to be held in separate ‘quarters’. See also Article 75(5) of Additional Protocol I and Rule 119 of the 2005 ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, which refer to separate ‘quarters’ for women.
44 - See the commentary on Article 29, section D (in particular para. 2206), and section E (in particular paras 2215 and 2223–2224).
45 - Ibid.
46 - See the commentary on Article 14, section D.
47 - See Additional Protocol I, Article 75(5), and ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2005), Rule 119. The 2011 Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners also deserve mention as a guide to ensuring that the safety, health and social concerns of women prisoners of war are taken into account.
48 - See also Articles 75(5) and 77(4) of Additional Protocol I, and the commentary on Article 16, para. 1755. For further guidance, see also the non-binding Mandela Rules (2015), Rules 28 and 29.
49 - See ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2005), Rules 119, 120 and 135.
50 - See Additional Protocol I, Article 77(4), and ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (2005), Rules 120 and 135. See also Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Article 37(c), which requires that children deprived of their liberty be separated from adults ‘unless it is considered in the child’s best interest not to do so’, and the non-binding Mandela Rules (2015), Rule 11.
51 - See Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Article 3. For further guidance on the treatment of children deprived of their liberty, see UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (1990).