By entering this website you agree that we use cookies in order to understand visitor preferences and keep improving our service.
Learn more
I accept
International Committee of the Red Cross
French
Contact
Resource centre
International Committee of the Red Cross
English
Français
Toggle navigation
Donate
Home
Who we are
What we do
Where we work
War & Law
Support us
Home
Who we are
What we do
Where we work
War & Law
Support us
Donate
Treaties, States Parties and Commentaries
Advanced Search
Treaties and Documents
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols, and their Commentaries
By date
By topic
By State
Historical Treaties and Documents
By date
By topic
By State
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Commentary
of 1987
Role of the civilian population and of aid societies
[p.209] Article 17
-- Role of the civilian population and of aid
societies
[p.210] General remarks
690 The foremost reason for this provision is once again to protect the interests of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and its immediate
aim is to permit the civilian population and aid societies to assist such victims, either on their own initiative or at the request of the
authorities.
691 The draft Protocol additional to the fourth Convention, presented by the ICRC at the first session of the Conference of Government
Experts in 1971, contained an article entitled "Role of the civilian
population", which more or less covered the scope of the present
Article 17
, paragraph 1.
692 This provision was inspired by Article 18
, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, of the First Convention -- the principle of which Lame from the
original Convention of 22 August 1864 (Article 5
) -- and it was aimed
at extending the scope of Article 18
to the civilian wounded and
sick. In fact, Article 18
applies only to the military wounded and
sick, as defined in Article 13
of the First Convention.
693 A first addition was made to this text in the draft presented by the ICRC at the second session of the Conference of Government
Experts in 1972: the ICRC included the shipwrecked, in addition to
the wounded and sick. In doing so, it extended the scope of the
provisions of Article 21
of the Second Convention, which permits an
"appeal to the charity of commanders of neutral merchant vessels,
yachts or other craft", and guarantees special protection for vessels
responding to this appeal, or for those "having of their own accord
collected wounded, sick or shipwrecked persons". The Committee which
dealt with this question during the second session of the Conference
of Government Experts in 1972 considered that it was appropriate to
introduce in the draft a paragraph corresponding more closely to
Article 21 of the Second Convention, but covering all victims
protected in the draft, including in particular shipwrecked civilians
who are not covered by the Second Convention.
694 In the 1973 draft a new addition was made with the introduction of a paragraph inspired by Article 18
, paragraph 1, of the First
Convention. This provides for the possibility of military authorities
appealing to the charity of the civilian population to collect the
wounded and sick. The new paragraph extended its scope
in two
respects: first, like the whole of the new article, it also covered
the civilian wounded and sick; secondly, it allowed for the
possibility of appealing to the civilian population, as does Article
18
of the First Convention, and also to aid societies. (1)
[p.211] 695 As regards the structure of the article, the 1973 draft adopted a division into five paragraphs, of which the first four formed a
corollary to part of Article 18
of the First Convention, while the
fifth supplemented Article 21
of the Second Convention.
696 Though the substance of this draft article was retained during the CDDH with one exception, its structure was again modified. The
first three paragraphs were combined to form a single paragraph, the
fourth therefore remained as a separate paragraph (which became the
second paragraph of the present article), and the fifth was deleted.
697 The main modification of the substance of the draft during the CDDH consisted of the deletion of the fifth paragraph, although it
was ultimately of less importance than it had first seemed. In fact,
the deletion of this paragraph (2) should be considered in
conjunction with the reintroduction of the term "shipwrecked" in the
first and second paragraphs, which thus became complementary to
Article 21
of the Second Convention.
698 Thus the main reason for the deletion of this paragraph was that it no longer seemed to have much purpose. (3) Moreover, this argument
is strengthened by the new regulations adopted for medical ships and
craft. (4) However, it is appropriate to point out that perhaps an
attempt to increase the scope of this paragraph was not unrelated
either lo the decision finally taken to delete it. In presenting the
article, the ICRC representative had actually already mentioned that
the lack of any mention of aircraft (5) in paragraph 5 of the draft
meant that there was something missing, and an amendment was put
forward to include aircraft and vehicles in this paragraph. (6) This
amendment was hotly disputed, particularly because such a vague
provision relating to aircraft entailed the risk of reintroducing the
fear that medical aircraft might abuse their privileges while
detailed regulations had just been established for medical
aircraft. (7) It was after this debate that the decision to delete
the paragraph was taken by Committee II. (8)
Paragraph 1
' First sentence '
699 This paragraph confirms a traditional rule which the civilian population should observe. It is the only place in the Protocol where
the rule is explicitly addressed to the civilian population.
Nevertheless, as with any rule in the Protocol, it is appropriate to
recall that it is up to the High Contracting Parties to respect and
[p.212] to ensure respect for it in all circumstances, (9) and
therefore to instruct the civilian population accordingly.
700 The civilian population is defined in Article 50
of the Protocol ' (Definition of civilians and civilian population) '. (10)
701 The duty imposed here upon the civilian population is only to ' respect ' the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, and not to ' protect '
them. (11) Thus it is above all an obligation to refrain from action,
i.e., to commit no act of violence against the wounded or take
advantage of their condition. There is no positive obligation to
assist a wounded person, though obviously the possibility of imposing
such an obligation remains open for national legislation, and in
several countries the law has indeed provided for the obligation to
assist persons who are in danger, on pain of penal sanctions.
702 The obligation is imposed with respect to the ' wounded, sick and shipwrecked ' as they are defined in Article 8
' (Terminology) '. (12) Such an obligation had already been laid down
with respect to the wounded and sick covered by the First Convention,
but not with respect to the shipwrecked covered by the Second
Convention. A proposal had been made to add to this list "combatants
' hors de combat '", (13) but the point of view which finally
prevailed was that the problem of combatants ' hors de combat '
without also being wounded, sick or shipwrecked, should not be dealt
with in Part II, which is devoted to the wounded, sick and
shipwrecked. (14) At a later stage Committee II even rejected the
suggestion of Committee III that Article 17
should refer to the
protection of persons ' hors de combat. ' (15)
703 The obligation is unconditional, and it was considered proper to recall that it exists even if the victims ' belong to the adverse
Party. ' This stipulation was not indispensable and a proposal was
made to delete it: (16) clearly, it is the members of the adverse
Party with which this provision is primarily concerned, as violence
committed against victims of one's own Party, or against neutral
victims, is undoubtedly already prohibited by national legislation.
However, despite this, it was retained to make sure that there could
be no ambiguity.
704 The clause "and shall commit no act of violence against them" at first sight also seems superfluous. Would it actually be possible to
respect a wounded person and at the same time commit an act of
violence against him? This wording was already contained in the draft
presented to the CDDH by the ICRC, and it is in fact an approximate
transcription of Article 18
, paragraph 2, second sentence, of the
[p.213] First Convention. (17) Thus the act of violence must be
considered as an aspect of disrespect which deserves to be
emphasized. This is certainly the way in which this clause of
paragraph 1 should be understood. In this respect it should also be
noted that the violence which is prohibited is not necessarily
physical violence. For example, threatening or harassing a wounded
person would certainly constitute reprehensible moral violence
against him, and in any case this would be in violation of the duty
imposed by this provision to ' respect ' him.
' Second sentence '
705 The first sentence was concerned with instilling in the civilian population an attitude at least of neutrality with regard to any
victim. The second sentence is aimed at permitting civilians,
including aid societies, to adopt a positive attitude towards such
victims, if they desire to do so. In other words, the civilian
population ' must respect ' and ' may protect '.
706 This sentence is concerned, in addition to the civilian population, with ' aid societies, ' which are also mentioned in
Article 18
of the First Convention.
707 The mention of such societies had formed the subject of discussion during the second session of the Conference of Government
Experts in 1972. The opinion had been voiced that such societies did
not need to be mentioned specifically, as they form part of the
civilian population, but the opposite view prevailed. It was admitted
that as the population often organizes aid societies of different
kinds, it was opportune to mention such societies. (18)
708 The draft did not contain any example of such societies, though various amendments were put forward, proposing that the National Red
Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies should be mentioned
by way of example, in view of their prominent role in this type of
activity. (19) The principle of such a mention was adopted by
Committee II. (20) However, as stated above, such a mention is given
only by way of example, and when it was adopted by consensus at a
plenary meeting of the Conference, one delegation considered that it
was appropriate to recall that the mention of such societies "does
not imply any limitation on the initiative and the action of other
aid societies". (21) However, ' aid societies ' should be understood
to mean "voluntary aid societies duly recognized and authorized by
their governments", i.e., the societies covered by Article 26
of the
First Convention. This was the intention of the authors of the
draft, (22) and it was not contested by anyone during the CDDH. A
profit-making society or a society established without complying with
the rules imposed by national legislation, could therefore not fall
under this provision.
[p.214] 709 The civilian population and aid societies "shall be permitted, even on their own initiative" to undertake the described activities
(see below). This wording might lead one to suppose that
authorization should be requested (which, in principle, should be
granted). Yet this is not the case. In the absence of any provision
to the contrary, there is a presumption that the activities described
are permitted. In fact, this wording is taken from the First
Convention where the commentary is very clear on this subject:
assistance to the wounded is a duty and
"it is impossible a fortiori to deny those who wish to come to the help of the wounded their right to do so. That right is the
natural appanage of all persons; and no one can prevent the
civilian population from carrying out, in all circumstances,
their humanitarian duty towards the wounded [...]" (23)
At most, the authorities could prevent the civilian population from reaching the victims by prohibiting certain movements, provided that
there are valid reasons for such action, in particular, reasons of
security. However, it is up to them to justify such a prohibition. In
fact, this interpretation is reinforced by the expression "even on
their own initiative". There can actually be no question of
requesting authorization when people act on their own initiative.
Otherwise, they would no longer really be acting on their own
initiative. Thus the authorization referred to here applies generally
and is given once and for all. It is the expression of a right. (24)
710 However, it should also be noted that the expression ' even on their own initiative ' was only finally adopted after lengthy
discussions. Article 18
of the First Convention, like the 1973 draft,
used the term ' spontaneously. ' This expression was considered
inadequate, as on the one hand, it seemed to exclude organized aid,
and on the other hand, did not apply very accurately to the societies
whose activities do, after all, necessarily require some degree of
concerted cooperation. (25) The expression which was finally chosen
is appropriate, since the word ' even ' does not exclude organized
activities, and the expression ' on their own initiative ' does not
necessarily imply improvized action. It means that the aid societies
can take their decision in accordance with their respective decision
making processes, without external consultations.
711 Permission is given to ' collect and care for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. ' The original 1864 Convention had already stated
that "the presence of any wounded combatant receiving shelter and
care in a house shall ensure its protection". The principle went very
far and it was subsequently slightly diluted, (26) but the concepts
expressed by the terms "collect" and "care" were retained, for, as
the Commentary to the First Convention states, "to ' collect ' a
wounded man is to receive him into one's house. But it may also mean
to
bring him in from where he is lying wounded". (27) Apart from the
reference to "collect", the 1973 draft refers to "care or
assistance". However, this proposal led to heated [p.215] discussion
in Committee II and several proposals were made to amend it. (28)
Some were afraid that the term "assistance" entailed a "possibility
of conflict with domestic legislation concerning treason or other
crimes or unlawful acts". (29) Others thought that the term "care",
as well as the expressions "medical assistance" or "medical
the exclusion of a more general term, "would restrict the scope of
the article in a way that was incompatible with its humanitarian
aim". (30) In their opinion, "warm clothing or a packet of biscuits
could be just as useful as medical care". (31) The solution which was
finally adopted -- to "care" (French: "prodiguer des soins") -- is at
the same time a general and a restrictive term. It is general in that
there was no attempt to restrict aid solely to medical care, but the
intention was to include any act contributing to the victim's relief;
it is restrictive to the extent that it excluded assistance not
directly intended to relieve the victim, in order to avoid any
confusion with acts of treason or other punishable acts. Thus the
criterion is undeniably the purely humanitarian character of the
acts, as confirmed in the last sentence of the paragraph, which
qualifies them as "humanitarian acts".
712 There remains the thorny problem of supervision and the possible obligation for the civilian population or aid societies to report the
wounded they have collected or cared for to the authorities. On this
point the article is silent, as is Article 18
of the First
Convention. In this respect it is appropriate to refer to the
commentary on this article, which also applies to Article 17
,
paragraph 1, of the Protocol:
"But the Diplomatic Conference refused to make the permission granted to the inhabitants to give spontaneous help dependent on
the acceptance of military supervision, or on any kind of
compulsory statement, which would be tantamount to informing
against those cared for. They pointed out that the absence from
the Convention of any allusion to control did not necessarily
mean that control was prohibited, and that in actual fact the
military authorities could undoubtedly issue regulations of this
kind where such a course was indicated by circumstances." (32)
713 Finally, the authorization applies "even in invaded or occupied areas". In fact, the right of the civilian population and aid
societies to collect and care for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked
is an absolute right and this clarification was by no means
necessary. It was already present in Article 18
of the First
Convention, and was retained during the Conference of Government
Experts and the CDDH. It is actually in invaded or occupied areas
that the respect for this right of the civilian population is most at
risk, since it applies to the relationship between the authorities of
one Party to the conflict and the civilian population of the adverse
Party. Hence, this point was made explicitly to avoid any ambiguity.
However, it should be noted that during the Conference of Government
Experts in 1972, one delegation proposed deleting this phrase, given
that in practical terms such areas [p.216] are the only ones where
the rule can be effectively applied. (33) This is not strictly
correct. The rule also applies to the authorities of a Party to the
conflict with respect to its own population, even though, in such
cases, there should be fewer problems regarding its implementation.
During the CDDH it was also proposed to make a distinction between
situation "in invaded areas, which would probably be immediately
behind the battlefield, and occupied areas". (34) However, this
proposal was not adopted. Finally, it should be noted that no
definition was given of "invaded or occupied areas". In fact, it is a
question of degree. An area will be considered to be invaded, but not
occupied, when combatants have entered without yet having set up the
administrative machinery of occupation. Thus it is a transitional
period, and at the end the invader will either withdraw or establish
a proper form of occupation with all the juridical consequences
implicit in this, particularly the integral application of the fourth
Convention. (35)
' Third sentence '
714 The last sentence of paragraph 1 is a corollary of the previous sentence. The civilian population enjoys a right, and it follows
logically that it cannot be punished for the sole reason of having
exercised this right.
715 The term "no one" is used deliberately, and it extends the scope of the sentence. Not only civilians, but anyone, whether civilian or
military, the nationals of any Party, is covered by this sentence if
he has performed the acts referred to.
716 For such acts it is prohibited to ' harm, prosecute, convict or punish ' the persons concerned. Article 18
of the First Convention
used only the words ' molested or convicted; ' the word "prosecuted"
was added in the 1973 draft and Committee II of the CDDH decided to
introduce a second addition, i.e., the verb "punish". These terms
were added for the sake of being complete. The aim of the provision
is to prevent any repression, whether or not this is judicial
(' prosecute ' refers in particular to the examining magistrate and
the public prosecutor, who should not bring such a case before the
court, ' convict ' refers to the court which must acquit anyone who
is nonetheless brought before it on such a charge; ' harm ' may refer
to the investigation stage, which should not be embarked upon only
for such a reason). There may actually also be an extra-judiciary
form of repression. It is possible to harm someone with threats,
whether these are open or anonymous. As regards the meaning of
' punish, ' this is very broad and has already been discussed. (36)
717 By referring to "such humanitarian acts", this obviously indicates the acts enumerated in the preceding sentence, i.e.,
collecting and caring for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. In this
way, as shown above, it is also confirmed that the permitted acts
must have humanitarian motives: to collect a wounded [p.217] person
in the hope of financial reward is no longer a humanitarian act. For
the rest, the rule cannot be invoked to shirk an obligation to report
the wounded that have been collected in the event that such an
obligation
had been imposed by the authorities. On this point there
is certainly a difference to be made as compared with medical
personnel. (37)
Paragraph 2
718 Since it is important that the civilian population can act on its own initiative for the benefit of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked,
without fear of being punished, it is no less important that it can
carry out such tasks at the request of the Parties to the conflict,
especially when the medical services of the latter are overworked.
This second aspect of the participation of civilians in activities
for the benefit of victims is absolutely fundamental. It was such an
appeal that Dunant made to the local population in Solferino, based
at that time only upon his moral authority, long before the founding
of the Red Cross and the adoption of the Geneva Convention of 22
August 1864.
719 Such a provision was contained in all the versions of the Geneva Convention, and it was included in 1949 in Article 18
, paragraph 1,
of the First Convention and Article 21
of the Second Convention. The r
eason that it is repeated in the Protocol is that the victims --
with regard to whom the civilian population may be called upon to
help -- are no longer only the military wounded and sick (as defined
in Article 13
of the First Convention), but military land civilian
wounded, sick ' and shipwrecked. '
720 It is the ' Parties to the conflict ' which may make such an appeal, whereas the First Convention stipulated that this should be
the ' military authorities. ' The solution given in the Protocol is
very suitable, leaving the competence to the highest authorities of
the Parties to the conflict, whether civilian or military -- i.e.,
for States, to the government -- while giving the latter the
possibility of delegating this competence to subordinate bodies.
721 The 1973 draft referred to the possibility of appealing to the ' charity ' of the civilian population, the word used in the First
Convention. During the CDDH the proposal to delete this word, which
was considered "out of date" (38) was adopted. Various replacements
for this term -- "goodwill", "humanitarian feelings", "generous
feelings" -- were also rejected (39) and Committee II finally adopted
a proposal "that al reference to feelings should be deleted" from
paragraph 2 of Article 17
. (40) In fact, this reference to the
feelings of the population hardly seems to be necessary, though with
one reservation. Two representatives expressed the fear that the
absence of such a reference would permit the provisions of paragraph
2 to be interpreted as being mandatory for the civilian
p.218] population. (41) The present text is actually ambiguous on
this point and it is appropriate to stress in this commentary that
the drafters' intention was to retain an optional character for this
provision, both with regard to the Parties to the conflict (who may
make an appeal or refrain from so doing) and with regard to the
civilian population and aid societies (who remain free to respond as
they wish). This provision should not be seen a a sort of "right to
mobilize" civilians for humanitarian purposes.
722 The appeal is made to the civilian population and the aid societies referred to in paragraph 1. (42)
723 The appeal can be made only for specific tasks. The first two of these, "to collect and [to] care for the wounded, sick and
shipwrecked", are identical to those described in paragraph 1. (43)
724 However, the civilian population and aid societies may also be called upon for a third task, and it is appropriate to consider this
here. The task referred to is "to search for the dead and report
their location". This task is not contained in Article 18
of the
First Convention (44) and had not been introduced in the 1973 draft.
Curiously, it was introduced by the Drafting Committee of Committee
II, who were concerned to make this paragraph accord with paragraph 5
of the 1973 draft, which related to the appeal to commanders of
civilian ships and craft, and which contained a similar provision.
Yet, as mentioned above, this paragraph 5 was deleted, (45) though
the addition made to paragraph 2 was retained, admittedly in a
modified form. The Drafting Committee of Committee II had actually
proposed the expression "to collect the dead", but one delegation
remarked that "it was not right that civilian populations and relief
societies should be expected to collect the dead, with the possible
exception of those at sea". (46) The present text was then proposed
in an amendment which was adopted by consensus at the 44th meeting of
Committee II. (47) The possibility of asking the civilian population
and aid societies to deal with the dead is not mentioned. This
omission seems justified, particularly for reasons of hygiene. On the
other hand, it is certainly possible to appeal to them to search for
the dead, and if they should find them, to report their location to
the authorities.
725 Next it is specified that the Parties to the conflict which have made such an appeal to the civilian population or aid societies
should grant "protection and the necessary facilities to those who
respond to this appeal". This is a logical and indispensable
requirement. It would not be possible to appeal to the civilian
population and to aid societies without granting them sufficient
protection and assistance. Such a provision is also contained in
similar terms in Article 18
, paragraph 1, of the First
Convention. (48)
[p.219] 726 What constitutes such protection and ' necessary ' facilities? This refers to such protection and facilities without which the task
of the population or the aid societies would be too difficult or
dangerous. The assessment of such necessity is left in the first
instance to the competent authorities of the Party to the conflict
which made the appeal, but this Party must take into account, as far
as possible, the wishes and views of the societies or persons
prepared to respond to the appeal. Such protection and facilities
will essentially depend on the circumstances and can therefore not be
listed exhaustively.
727 However, it should be noted that the protection which can be granted in this context does not automatically include the right to
use the red cross emblem, as the use of this emblem must be reserved
to situations explicitly provided for by the Conventions and the
Protocol. This restriction is justified because the risk of abuse is
so great. However, there is nothing to prevent the Parties to the
conflict from increasing the strength of their temporary medical
personnel or the number of their temporary medical units. The
Protocol is very flexible in this respect. However, such measures
imply strict supervision and do not fall under the scope of this
article.
728 Finally, Article 17
imposes an obligation on the adverse Party to afford the same protection and facilities for as long as they are
needed, if it gains or regains control of the area. The logic of this
obligation is not the same as that for the previous obligation, as in
this case a Party to the conflict is required to afford protection
and facilities to persons or societies to which it has not made an
appeal itself. However, it is in the interests of the wounded and
sick that the population or the societies to which an appeal had been
made for help by the often overloaded authorities, can continue their
humanitarian task, even under the authorities of the adverse Party. A
similar provision had been introduced in Article 18 of the First
Convention in 1949 to fill the gap which was felt to exist in the
1929 Convention. (49)
729 It should be noted that this phrase refers to a Party which ' gains or regains ' control of the area. The determining factor is
the need, and not the fact that one Party or the other controls the
area. In this respect it is of little or no importance whether the
area is occupied or not. The facilities must be afforded if they are
needed, and must continue to be afforded by the adversary if the need
continues.
730 However, the maintenance of such protection and such facilities remains obligatory only for "so long as they are needed". This
specific stipulation was made neither in Article 18
of the First
Convention, nor in the 1973 draft. It was added during the CDDH on
the basis of an amendment. (50) Nevertheless, it is justified. A
change in the control of territory can totally change the parameters
of a problem. Some measures of protection or assistance may no longer
be necessary. It may no longer be useful to resort lo the civilian
population or to aid societies, particularly if the medical services
of the Party gaining or regaining control of the area can easily cope
with their task. As regards an assessment of what is ' necessary, '
what was said above also applies here (51)
[p.220] 731 Moreover, it should be recalled that the civilian population and aid societies obviously retain the right to collect and care for the
wounded, sick and shipwrecked on their own initiative in accordance
with paragraph 1, independently of any protection and facilities
which the Parties to the conflict might grant them or withhold from
them.
Y. S.
NOTES (1) However, it should be noted that in this second case there is not really a substantial change.
According to ' Commentary I ', it is clear that relief
societies are covered by the generic term "inhabitants".
Cf. p. 189 of that ' Commentary ';
(2) On this subject, cf. O.R. XII, p. 50, CDDH/II/SR.59, para. 78.
(3) On this subject, cf. ibid., pp. 49-50, paras. 72 and 77;
(4) Cf. Arts. 22 and 23 with the commentary thereon, infra, p. 253;
(5) Cf. O.R. XI, p. 157, CDDH/II/SR.17, para. 18;
(6) Cf. O.R. III, pp. 85-86, CDDH/II/203;
(7) Cf. O.R. XII, pp. 48-50, CDDH/II/SR.59, paras. 67, 72 and 74. As regards medical aircraft, cf. Arts.
24-31, with the commentary thereon, infra, p. 279;
(8) Cf. O.R. XII, p. 50, CDDH/II/SR.59, para. 78;
(9) Cf. Art. 1, para. 1;
(10) Cf. commentary Art. 50, infra, p. 609;
(11) On the meaning of these two terms, cf. commentary Art. 10, supra, p. 145;
(12) Cf. commentary Art. 8, sub-paras. (a) and b), supra, pp. 116-124;
(13) Cf. O.R. III, p. 83, CDDH/II/14;
(14) Cf. O.R. XI, pp. 158-161, CDDH/II/SR.17, paras. 34-56;
(15) Cf. O.R. XIII, p. 66, CDDH/236/Rev. 1, para. 25. According to the Rapporteur of Committee III, speaking
on persons hors de combat, it seemed undeniable that such
persons should be respected by the civilian population.
However, Committee III considered that a provision on this
point would be more appropriate in Art. 17, which is why it was referred to Committee II, which refused to take up
the question for the reason mentioned above. For further
details on this matter, cf. commentary Art. 41 and Art.
42, infra, p. 479;
(16) Cf. O.R. III, p. 85, CDDH/II/203;
(17) This sentence is worded as follows: "The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick,
and in particular abstain from offering them violence";
(18) ' CE 1972, Report, ' vol. I, p. 40, para. 1.58;
(19) Cf. O.R. III, p. 82-84, CDDH/II/1, 11, 16, 19;
(20) By 45 votes to none against and seven abstentions: cf. O.R. XI, p. 162, CDDH/II/SR.17, paras. 62
and 63;
(21) O.R. VI p. 78, CDDH/SR.37, Annex (Holy See);
(22) Cf. ' Commentary Drafts, ' p. 26 (Art. 17, para. 2);
(23) ' Commentary I, ' p. 189;
(24) On this subject, cf. also O.R. XI, p. 243, CDDH/II/SR.24, para. 59;
(25) Cf. in particular O.R. XI, pp. 238-243, CDDH/II/SR.24, paras. 21-66;
(26) On this subject, cf. ' Commentary I, ' pp. 184 ff.;
(27) Ibid., p. 187;
(28) Cf. O.R. III, pp. 83 and 85, CDDH/II/12, 54 and 203;
(29) O.R. XI, p. 158, CDDH/II/SR.17, para. 32;
(30) Ibid., p. 159, para. 35;
(31) Ibid., para. 43;
(32) ' Commentary I, ' pp. 190-191;
(33) ' CE 1972, Report, ' vol. II, p. 27 (Art. 20);
(34) O.R. XI, p. 238, CDDH/II/SR.24, para. 24;
(35) Cf. in addition commentary Art. 44, infra, pp. 532-533 and note 53;
(36) Cf. commentary Art. 16, para. 1, supra, p. 199. On the subject of this sentence, cf. also
' Commentary I, ' pp. 192-193 (Art. 18, para. 3);
(37) On this subject, cf. commentary Art. 16, para. 3, supra, pp. 204-208;
(38) Cf. in particular O.R. XI, p. 241, CDDH/II/SR.24, para. 49;
(39) Cf. in particular ibid., pp. 237-244, paras. 17, 30, 40-42, 46, 49-51, 55, 57, 60, 67-70;
(40) Ibid., p. 244, CDDH/II/SR.24, para. 70. This proposal was approved by 27 votes for, 8 against and 14
abstentions;
(41) Cf. ibid., p. 242, CDDH/II/SR.24, paras. 55 and 57;
(42) On this subject, cf. commentary para. 1, supra, pp. 211-216;
(43) On this subject, cf. ibid;
(44) However, the Parties to the conflict could also rely on Art. 15, para. 1, of the First Convention to
approach the civilian population for these purposes;
(45) On this subject, cf. supra, p. 211;
(46) O.R. XI, p. 486, CDDH/II/SR.44, para. 8;
(47) Cf. O.R. III, p. 86, CDDH/II/256, and O.R. XIII, p. 94, CDDH/221/Rev. 1, para. 87;
(48) On this subject, reference could be made to ' Commentary I, ' pp. 186 ff. The following remarks are
largely inspired by this;
(49) Cf. ' Commentary I, ' p. 188;
(50) Cf. O.R. III, p. 85, CDDH/II/54; O.R. XIII, pp. 91 and 93, CDDH/221/Rev. 1, para. 83;
(51) Cf. supra;
GVALNWB2/ICRC
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Google+
Share on LinkedIn
Print this page