القاعدة ذات الصلة
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 69. Loss of Inviolability of Parlementaires
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that a “parlementaire and those who are in his or her party are entitled to complete inviolability, so long as they do nothing to abuse this protection, or to take advantage of their protected position [for example, by collecting information covertly]”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 14-1, § 5.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Communications and contact between opposing forces”:
3. The parlementaire and those who are in his or her party are entitled to complete inviolability, so long as they do nothing to abuse this protection, or to take advantage of their protected position.
7. After making contact with the adverse party, the parlementaire must obey any orders that a party provides regarding the entry of that party’s lines, and must withdraw if so instructed. During the withdrawal and return to the parlementaire’s own lines, the parlementaire continues to enjoy inviolability and may not be attacked. When ordered to withdraw, the parlementaire must be given a reasonable time in which to do so. Failure to withdraw results in loss of protection and the parlementaire may then be fired upon. If the parlementaire remains within enemy lines after being ordered to withdraw, he loses his inviolability and may be made a PW [prisoner of war]. Detention may occur if the parlementaire has abused the position of parlementaire, for example, by collecting information covertly. It is not an abuse of the position for the parlementaire, however, to report on observations made.
8. Only the parlementaire and an interpreter are entitled to enter enemy lines. The other members of the party must obey orders given by the adverse party. They remain entitled to protection until the parlementaire rejoins them and they return to their own lines. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1402.3 and 7–8.