القاعدة ذات الصلة
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 60. Improper Use of the United Nations Emblem or Uniform
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “It is prohibited … to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by the organization.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 11(c); see also p. 8-10, § 79(d) (prohibition of warships and auxiliary vessels actively simulating the status of vessels protected by the United Nations flag).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare that it is prohibited to “make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 605.1.c.
In its chapter on naval warfare, the manual states: “Warships and auxiliary vessels are also prohibited from actively simulating the status of: … d. vessels protected by the United Nations flag.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 856.5.d.
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.