Practice Relating to Rule 135. Children

Geneva Convention IV
Article 68, fourth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 68, fourth para.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 6(5) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: “Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, Article 6(5).
American Convention on Human Rights
Article 4(5) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights provides: “Capital punishment shall not be imposed upon persons who, at the time the crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.” 
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 4(5).
Additional Protocol I
Article 77(5) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict shall not be executed on persons who had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time the offence was committed.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 77(5). Article 77 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 251.
Additional Protocol II
Article 6(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 6(4). Article 6 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 85.
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 37(a) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:
No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age. 
Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 44/25, 20 November 1989, Article 37(a).
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 4 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 77(5) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 4.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.3 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 77(5) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.3.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides: “In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.028(1).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides, with respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular: “The death penalty shall not be pronounced against a person who is under the age of 18.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 7.10; see also §§ 3.28 and 5.11.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “The death penalty must not be executed on children who are under the age of 18 at the time the offence was committed.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 947.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that “the death penalty must not be executed on children who are under the age of 18 at the time the offence was committed”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.50.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “no death penalty for an offence related to an armed conflict shall be executed against persons who are under the age of 18 at the time when the offence was committed”. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 30, § 131; see also p. 50, § 231 and p. 76, § 321.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides, with respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular: “Regardless of the offence committed, no death penalty shall be pronounced upon persons under the age of eighteen at the time of the offence.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-4, § 30.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on non-international armed conflicts: “Regardless of the offence committed, no death penalty shall be pronounced upon persons under the age of eighteen at the time of the offence.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1716.3.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states with regard to the protection of children: “[T]he death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict shall not be executed on persons who had not attained the age of 18 at the time the offence was committed.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 53; see also p. 92.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
I.1.3. Children
Additional Protocol I specifies that children have the right to the care and aid they require because of their age … No death sentence must be executed against a person who had not attained the age of 18 years at the moment of the offence. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 22; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 32.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “In no case may this [death] penalty be pronounced on a protected person who was under the age of eighteen at the time the offence was committed”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 238(F).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “The death penalty shall not be pronounced on persons who were under the age of eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
Section 11 - Prosecutions and procedural guarantees
1071. The prosecution and punishment of offences relating to the armed conflict should be subject to the following conditions (this relates to the bearing of arms and the committing of offences and war crimes during the internal armed conflict):
- for parties which still maintain capital punishment, the death penalty must not be imposed on persons who were younger than 18 years old at the time of committing the offence, on pregnant women or on women who are mothers of young children.
The Netherlands has abolished capital punishment. No Dutch judicial authority may pronounce a death sentence. Furthermore, the Netherlands may not agree to hand over persons under Dutch jurisdiction who are suspected or convicted of an offence carrying the death penalty, unless guarantees are given that the death penalty will not be carried out. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1071 and p. 173.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced [by the Occupying Power] against a protected person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1327(1)(c).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “The death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict may not be pronounced on a person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.o.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “The death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict may not be pronounced on a person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n), p. 252.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that the occupying power can only pronounce the death penalty when the accused is over the age of 18 years. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 173.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 566(c).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Death penalties for offences related to the armed conflict are not to be carried out on those aged under eighteen years at the time of the offence. In any event, United Kingdom courts may not impose death sentences. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.9.2; see also § 16.48 (enforcement of the law of armed conflict).
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 68 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 438.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s Juvenile Code (2005) states: “Children cannot be [sentenced] to life imprisonment or the death penalty.” 
Afghanistan, Juvenile Code, 2005, Article 39(1)(c).
The Code states also: “[A c]hild [is a] person who [is under] the age of 18.” 
Afghanistan, Juvenile Code, 2005, Article 4(1).
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Guinea
Guinea’s Children’s Code (2008) states: “In no circumstances shall the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release be imposed for offences committed by Children who were under the age of 18 at the time of their commission.” 
Guinea, Children’s Code, 2008, Article 345.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 77(5), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 6(4), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Israel
Israel’s Order Concerning Security Provisions (1970) states: “No death sentence may be passed by a court if the accused was under the age of eighteen at the time of committing the offence.” 
Israel, Order Concerning Security Provisions, 1970, Section 51(B).
Japan
Japan’s Juvenile Law (1948), as amended in 2010, states: “In the case where a person who is under 18 years of age at the time of his commission of an offence is to be punished with the death penalty, life imprisonment shall be imposed.” 
Japan, Juvenile Law, 1948, as amended in 2010, Article 51. (For a translation of Article 51, see Japan’s initial report to the Committee Against Torture, UN Doc. CAT/C/JPN/1, 21 March 2007, submitted 20 December 2005, Annex XIV, p. 101.)
Jordan
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan (1998), national legislation provides that the death penalty may not be pronounced on a minor who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1998, Chapter 5.3
Jordan
In 2005, in its third periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Jordan stated: “No one under the age of 18 may be sentenced to death.” 
Jordan, Third periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2 March 2006, UN Doc. CRC/C/JOR/3, submitted 11 July 2005, § 295.
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Republic Act No. 9344 (2006), the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, provides:
Every child in conflict with the law shall have the following rights, including but not limited to:
(b) the right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment or life imprisonment, without the possibility of release. 
Philippines, Republic Act No. 9344, 2006, Section 5(b).
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides that the death penalty “shall not apply to juvenile offenders … at the time of committing crimes or being tried”. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, § 35.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Criminal Code (2015), which includes war crimes, states:
Article 40. Death sentence
1. [The d]eath sentence is a special sentence imposed upon people committing extremely serious crimes that infringe national security, human life, drug-related crimes, corruption-related crimes, and some other extremely serious crimes defined by this Code.
2. [The death sentence] shall not be imposed upon juvenile offenders, women who are pregnant or raising children under 36 months of age, and people [who were] 75 years of age or older when they commit[ted] the crime or [at the time of] trial.
4. In the cases specified in Clause 3 of this Article or [if] the death sentence is commuted, the death sentence shall be replaced with life imprisonment.
Article 101. Determinate imprisonment
2. If the punishment for a crime is life imprisonment or [the] death sentence as prescribed by law, the heaviest sentence imposed upon an offender aged from 14 to under 16 shall not exceed 12 years[.] 
Viet Nam, Criminal Code, 2015, Article 40(1)–(3)(a) and (4) and 101(2).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Constitution (2013) states:
Chapter 4 – Declaration of Rights
48. Right to life
(2) A law may permit the death penalty to be imposed only on a person convicted of murder committed in aggravating circumstances, and –
(c) the penalty must not be imposed on a person –
(i) who was less than twenty-one years old when the offence was committed; …
86. Limitation of rights and freedoms
(2) The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter may be limited only in terms of a law of general application and to the extent that the limitation is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including –
(b) the purpose of the limitation, in particular whether it is necessary in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town planning or the general public interest;
(3) No law may limit the following rights enshrined in this Chapter, and no person may violate them –
(a) the right to life, except to the extent specified in section 48;
87. Limitations during public emergency
(1) In addition to the limitations permitted by section 86, the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter may be further limited by a written law providing for measures to deal with situations arising during a period of public emergency, but only to the extent permitted by this section and the Second Schedule.
(4) No law that provides for a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislative or other measure taken in consequence of such a declaration may –
(a) indemnify, or permit or authorise an indemnity for, the State or any institution or agency of the government at any level, or any other person, in respect of any unlawful act; or
(b) limit any of the rights referred to in section 86(3), or authorise or permit any of those rights to be violated. 
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Sections 48(2)(c)(i), 86(2)(b) and (3)(a), and 87(1) and (4).
Colombia
In 2005, in the Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
Criminal prosecutions of minors must strictly comply with the minimum constitutional and international norms found in (i) Article 44 of the Constitution [and] (ii) the Beijing Rules or “the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice” … They all include standards that must be complied with as part of the Colombian domestic legal framework, as expressly stated in Article 44 of the Constitution according to which children are entitled to the totality of rights found in international instruments. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, Judgment of 8 March 2005, § 4.6.2; see also § 4.2.5.
The Court also found: “Rule 17 [of the ‘Beijing Rules’] states that … capital punishment shall not be imposed for any crime committed by minors.” 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, Judgment of 8 March 2005, § 4.2.5.1.15.
(footnote in original omitted )
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
Afghanistan
In 2009, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Afghanistan stated:
97. Article 76.1 of the Penal Code also ensures that the death penalty is not applied to children under any circumstances. According to article 39 of the Juvenile Code (2005) children cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment or capital punishment.
290. Article 39 of the Juvenile Code (2005) prohibits capital punishment or life sentence of children. Article 76 of the Penal Code states that if a minor commits a crime for which the penalty is capital punishment or life sentence, the court can place the child in detention, provided that his custody period … [does] not exceed five years … The Juvenile Code (2005) will be applied in the cases of underage persons detained for their participation in anti-government armed groups. 
Afghanistan, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 13 June 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/AFG/1, submitted 28 August 2009, §§ 97 and 290.
Afghanistan also stated that: “The laws of Afghanistan define all individuals under the age of 18 years as a child.” 
Afghanistan, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 13 June 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/AFG/1, submitted 28 August 2009, § 72.
Afghanistan further stated that there had been “three decades of war and instability” in the country. 
Afghanistan, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 13 June 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/AFG/1, submitted 28 August 2009, § 4.
Chad
In 1997, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Chad stated: “The death penalty is not applicable to minors.” 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 1997, UN Doc. CRC/C/3/Add.50, submitted 14 January 1997, § 90.
Pakistan
In 2001, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Pakistan stated that “the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000, recently promulgated in Pakistan, imposes an absolute ban on the death sentence for persons under the age of 18 years”. 
Pakistan, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 11 April 2003, UN Doc. CRC/C/65/Add.21, submitted 19 January 2001, p. 131; see also pp. 18, 37, 49, 106 and 122.
Peru
In 1993, Peru informed the Committee on the Rights of the Child that “children convicted of committing terrorist activities could not receive life sentences” and that “even if the death penalty were introduced for terrorists, it would not be applied to adolescents under the age of 18 because the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] took precedence over all other legislation”. 
Peru, Statement before the Committee on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc. CRC/C/SR.84, 30 September 1993, §§ 25 and 39.
Rwanda
In 2010, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Rwanda stated:
42. With regard to the conformity of the implementation of the [2000] Optional Protocol [on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict] to the general principles of the [1989] Convention on the Rights of the Child, the following should be noted.
53. Rwanda abolished capital punishment [Organic Law No. 24/2007 of 27 June 2007 on the Abolition of Death Sentence] and it should be noted that even before the adoption of this measure, capital punishment was not rendered against persons aged less than 18 years because Article 77 of the Penal Code [(1977)] exempted minors from capital punishment. The results of this provision was that when a person aged between 14 years and 18 years at the time of offence was liable to the death penalty or to life imprisonment, his/her sentence was commuted to 20 years in prison. In addition, the Penal Code of Rwanda prohibited the execution of an expectant mother before delivery (Article 31). 
Rwanda, Initial Report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 6 December 2011, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/RWA/1, submitted 20 January 2010, §§ 42 and 53.
[footnote in original omitted]
Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated:
Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II] and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include … Article 6 providing the rule on penal prosecutions due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, § 75.
Syrian Arab Republic
The Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic asserts that the Syrian Arab Republic considers Article 77 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to be part of customary international law. 
Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, 1997, Chapter 5.3.
Uganda
In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Uganda stated:
In Uganda’s national legislation a sentence of death is not imposed on … a person below the age of 18 years … Section 104 of the [Trial on Indictments Decree, 1971] states that a sentence of death shall not be pronounced or recorded against a person, who at the time of committing the offence, he or she was under the age of 18 years. In these circumstances, the person shall instead be detained for such a period of time as the Minister may order. 
Uganda, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 14 February 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UGA/2003/1, 25 February 2003, § 141.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, “Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II] reflect general US policy on treatment of persons in the power of an adverse party in armed conflicts governed by common Article 3” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The report also notes: “It is the opinio juris of the US that persons detained in connection with an internal armed conflict are entitled to humane treatment as specified in Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II].” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.3.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon:
All States, in particular States in which the death penalty has not been abolished, to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including, in particular, articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, keeping in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and 1989/64 of 24 May 1989, and calls upon those States to abolish by law, as soon as possible, the death penalty for those below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/157, 22 December 2003, § 41(a), voting record: 179-1-0-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon:
All States, in particular States in which the death penalty has not been abolished, to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including, in particular, articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, keeping in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and the guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and 1989/64 of 24 May 1989, and calls upon those States to abolish by law, as soon as possible, the death penalty for those below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/261, 23 December 2004, § 38(a), voting record: 166-2-1-22.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly:
27. Calls upon all States, in particular those States in which the death penalty has not been abolished:
(a) To abolish by law, as soon as possible, the death penalty for those below the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence;
(b) To comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(c) To keep in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and the guarantees set out in United Nations safeguards adopted by the Economic and Social Council. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/231, 23 December 2005, § 27, voting record: 130-1-0-60.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly:
31. Calls upon all States, in particular those States in which the death penalty has not been abolished:
(a) To abolish by law, as soon as possible, the death penalty and life imprisonment without possibility of release for those under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence;
(b) To comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(c) To keep in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and the guarantees set out in United Nations safeguards adopted by the Economic and Social Council. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/146, 19 December 2006, § 31, voting record: 185-1-0-6.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States in which the death penalty has not been abolished to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including in particular articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, bearing in mind the safeguards and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and 1989/64 of 24 May 1989. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/173, 19 December 2006, § 4, voting record: 137-0-43-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly:
31. Calls upon all States, in particular those States in which the death penalty has not been abolished:
(a) To abolish by law, as soon as possible, the death penalty and life imprisonment without possibility of release for those under the age of 18 years at the time of the commission of the offence;
(b) To comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(c) To keep in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and the guarantees set out in United Nations safeguards adopted by the Economic and Social Council. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/141, 18 December 2007, § 31, voting record: 183-1-0-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Commission Human Rights:
Recalling Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, annexed thereto, and Council resolution 1989/64 of 24 May 1989 on their implementation, as well as the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985,
6. Calls upon all States in which the death penalty has not been abolished to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including in particular articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, bearing in mind the safeguards and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 and 1989/64. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/53, 24 April 2003, preamble and § 6, voting record: 37-0-16.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 entitled “The question of the death penalty”, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms the right of everyone to life, article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 6 and 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Deeply concerned that several countries impose the death penalty in disregard of the limitations set out in the Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
2. Reaffirms resolution 2000/17 of 17 August 2000 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on international law and the imposition of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence;
4. Urges all States that still maintain the death penalty:
(a) Not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, and to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment;
(e) Not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the Covenant which may be contrary to the object and the purpose of the Covenant and to withdraw any such existing reservations, given that article 6 enshrines the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to submit to the Commission, at its sixtieth session, in consultation with Governments, specialized agencies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, a yearly supplement on changes in law and practice concerning the death penalty worldwide to his quinquennial report on capital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, paying special attention to the imposition of the death penalty against persons younger than 18 years of age at the time of the offence. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/67, 24 April 2003, preamble and §§ 2, 4(a) and (e) and 8, voting record: 23-18-10.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon:
All States, in particular States in which the death penalty has not been abolished, to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including in particular articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, keeping in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and 1989/64 of 24 May 1989; and calls upon those States to abolish by law as soon as possible the death penalty for those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/86, 25 April 2003, § 35(a), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls upon all States in which the death penalty has not been abolished to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including in particular articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, bearing in mind the safeguards and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 and 1989/64. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/37, 19 April 2004, § 7, voting record: 39-0-12.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged States to ensure that “under their legislation and practice neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/43, 19 April 2004, § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon:
All States, in particular, States in which the death penalty has not been abolished, to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including in particular articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, keeping in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and 1989/64 of 24 May 1989, and calls upon those States to abolish by law as soon as possible the death penalty for those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/48, 20 April 2004, § 35(a), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the question of the death penalty, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the right of everyone to life, article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 6 and 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Deeply concerned that several countries impose the death penalty in disregard of the limitations set out in the Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
2. Reaffirms resolution 2000/17 of 17 August 2000 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on international law and the imposition of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence;
4. Urges all States that still maintain the death penalty:
(a) Not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age;
(g) Not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the Covenant which may be contrary to the object and the purpose of the Covenant and to withdraw any such existing reservations, given that article 6 enshrines the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area;
8. Requests the SecretaryGeneral to submit his quinquennial report on capital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, paying special attention to the imposition of the death penalty against persons younger than 18 years of age at the time of the offence. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/67, 21 April 2004, preamble and §§ 2, 4(a) and (g) and 8, voting record: 29-19-5.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls upon all States in which the death penalty has not been abolished to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, including in particular articles 6, 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, bearing in mind the safeguards and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 and 1989/64. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/34, 19 April 2005, § 6, voting record: 36-0-17.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon:
In particular, States in which the death penalty has not been abolished, to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, particularly articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, keeping in mind the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 of 25 May 1984 and 1989/64 of 24 May 1989, and calls upon those States to abolish by law as soon as possible the death penalty for those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/44, 19 April 2005, § 27(a), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the question of the death penalty, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the right of everyone to life, convinced that the abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of this right and recalling article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 6 and 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Reaffirming also resolution 2000/17 of 17 August 2000 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on international law and the imposition of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time of the commission of the offence,
1. Expresses its concern at the continuing use of the death penalty around the world, alarmed in particular at its application after trials that do not conform to international standards of fairness and that several countries impose the death penalty in disregard of the limitations set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty;
7. Urges all States that still maintain the death penalty:
(a) Not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age;
(g) To withdraw and/or not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the Covenant that may be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant, given that article 6 enshrines the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/59, 20 April 2005, preamble and §§ 1 and 7(a) and (g), voting record: 26-17-10.
No data.
African Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers
In the Maputo Declaration on the Use of Children as Soldiers, the participants at the African Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers in 1999 called upon African States:
to respect fully the provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular in the case of captured child soldiers, especially by … ensuring that neither the death penalty nor life imprisonment without possibility of release is imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age. 
African Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers, Maputo, 19–22 April 1999, Maputo Declaration on the Use of Children as Soldiers, § 5.
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines in 2003, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee notes that the death penalty is prohibited for persons under 18 years of age, but is concerned that minors have been sentenced to death, seven of whom are currently detained on death row.
[The State party] should also ensure compliance with article 6, paragraph 5, of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] prohibiting the imposition of the death sentence for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL, 1 December 2003, § 10.
[emphasis in original]
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Sudan in 2007, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee notes with concern that although the Interim National Constitution prohibits the imposition of the death penalty on those under the age of 18, exceptionally in Northern Sudan the death penalty can in fact be imposed on minors. While it takes note of the State party’s reply that offenders under the age of 18 are subjected to protection and re-education measures, it emphasises that the Constitutional Court has been seized, by a person claiming to be a minor, with a case challenging a death sentence against the individual concerned. It repeats that the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] does not allow the death penalty to be imposed for crimes committed by individuals aged under 18, and permits no derogation from that article (arts. 2, 4 and 6 of the Covenant).
In keeping with article 6 of the Covenant, the State party should guarantee that the death penalty will not be applied to persons aged under 18 years. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, 29 August 2007, § 20.
[emphasis in original]
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States in 2006, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005), which held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. In this regard, the Committee reiterates the recommendation made in its previous concluding observations, encouraging the State party to withdraw its reservation to article 6 (5) of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, 18 December 2006, § 6.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The pronouncement of the death penalty for an offence related to the armed conflict shall not be executed on persons who had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time the offence was committed.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 204.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states: “Sentences of death shall not be carried out on … children under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.” 
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 8 (3), IRRC, No. 282, p. 333.