Practice Relating to Rule 139. Respect for International Humanitarian Law

Hague Convention (II)
Article 1 of the 1899 Hague Convention (II) provides:
The High Contracting Parties shall issue instructions to their armed land forces, which shall be in conformity with the “Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land” annexed to the present Convention. 
Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 1.
Hague Convention (IV)
Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) provides:
The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention. 
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 1.
Panmunjom Armistice Agreement
Article II(17) of the 1953 Panmunjom Armistice Agreement provides:
Responsibility for compliance with and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Armistice Agreement is that of signatories hereto and their successors in command. The Commanders of the opposing sides shall establish within their respective commands all measures and procedures necessary to insure complete compliance with all the provisions hereof by all elements of their commands. 
Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a Military Armistice in Korea, Panmunjom, 27 July 1953, Article II(17).
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 7(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to introduce in time of peace into their military regulations or instructions such provisions as may ensure observance of the present Convention, and to foster in the members of their armed forces a spirit of respect for the culture and cultural property of all peoples. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 7(1).
Additional Protocol I
Article 80(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall give orders and instructions to ensure observance of the Conventions and this Protocol, and shall supervise their execution.” 
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 80(2). Article 80 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 256.
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 14(3) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “Each High Contracting Party shall … require that its armed forces issue relevant military instructions and operating procedures … to comply with the provisions of this Protocol.” 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 14(3).
No data.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides:
The Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I expressly oblige States not only to respect [those agreements], but also to ensure respect by issuing orders and instructions for that purpose.” 
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, § 8.01.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “Rules of Engagement (ROE) provide authoritative guidance on the use of military force by the ADF [Australian Defence Forces] … ROE will include legal considerations and so will comply with the law of armed conflict.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 211.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
2.12 ROE [Rules of Engagement] provide authoritative guidance on the use of military force by the ADF [Australian Defence Forces] …. ROE will take into account legal considerations and so will comply with LOAC.
13.4 States are under a general obligation to issue orders and instructions requiring compliance with the LOAC and to take steps to see that those orders and instructions are observed … [T]he first step to enforcement of the LOAC is to ensure as wide a knowledge of its provisions as possible both within and outside the armed forces. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 2.12 and 13.4.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s LOAC Teaching Directive (1996) provides that the General Staff of the Forces and the Medical Service “shall give the necessary instructions [to ensure in all circumstances full respect for the law of armed conflicts and the rules of engagement by all members of the Armed Forces]”. 
Belgium, Directive sur l’enseignement du droit des conflits armés et des règles d’engagement au sein des Forces Armées belges, Ordre Général J/185, Forces Armées, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 8 February 1996, Section 1.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that missions assigned to subordinates “shall contain the details necessary to ensure respect for the law of war”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 10.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The commander must … ensure that … the law of war is effectively respected.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 43.
The Regulations also states that “[c]ontrolling the execution of orders [by the commander] has the purpose of … ensuring that subordinates respect and ensure respect for the law of war”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 41; see also Part I bis, p. 97.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “The main responsibility of members of the ‘Etats-Majors’ consists of verifying that their contribution to orders and instructions are in conformity with the Law of War.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 133, § 461.1.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “rules of engagement and/or [military] instructions are to ensure conduct compatible with the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law”. 
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. 224, § 231.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) defines the rules of engagement as “orders issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations within which force may be applied by the CF [Canadian Forces] to achieve military objectives in furtherance of national policy”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, Glossary, p. GL-17.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides:
The purpose of the Code … is to provide simple and understandable instructions to ensure that CF [Canadian Force] members apply as a minimum, the spirit and principles of the Law of Armed Conflict in all CF operations other than Canadian domestic operations. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Introduction, § 5.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) explains:
4. Operational missions often require CF [Canadian Forces] members to make decisions under considerable stress and in times of confusion. Moreover, the course of action one elects to make during operations can have serious consequences. Decisions must often be made very quickly. Compliance with this simple Code of Conduct helps to ensure that split second decisions are consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict and Canadian law.
5. The purpose of the Code, therefore, is to provide simple and understandable instructions to ensure that CF members apply as a minimum, the spirit and principles of the Law of Armed Conflict in all CF operations other than Canadian domestic operations. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Introduction, §§ 4–5.
Canada
Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008) states:
CHAPTER 1: THE USE OF FORCE AND LAW
SECTION I – GENERAL
101. INTRODUCTION
2. Rules of Engagement (ROE) are the command and control (C2) instrument by which the CDS [Chief of the Defence Staff] controls the application of force or actions which may be construed as provocative in CF [Canadian Forces] operations.
SECTION II - LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
102. REQUIREMENTS TO CONTROL THE USE OF FORCE
2. As the interpretation of the law will affect the definition of the operation’s mission and its execution, commanders at all levels and their subordinates are responsible for the correct and comprehensive application of the law in planning and conducting an operation.
104. INTERNATIONAL LAW
2. … As with any legal issue, an operational commander is not expected to be a legal expert, but is required to understand the principles in sufficient detail to ensure the following:
a. that international law is correctly applied in planning and conducting operations; and
b. that all members of the force understand their legal responsibilities with respect to the use of force, whether during an armed conflict or not.
105. OTHER LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO OPERATIONS
3. Strategic Guidance and Direction. The strategic-level guidance provided to the commander and any direction on the use of force (such as ROE) authorized for the operation must be based upon legal considerations and requirements. There also must be a clear and coherent link between the approved political objectives, military objectives, the legal basis for the operation, the commander’s concept of operations, and the ROE which are authorized for the operation. Therefore, legal staff shall be involved in the planning process at all levels.
CHAPTER 2: CONTROLLING THE USE OF FORCE
SECTION III – RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
205. INTRODUCTION
1. ROE are an indispensable instrument of C2 for ordering and controlling the use of force or actions which might be construed as provocative during military operations. ROE are orders issued by military authority that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, manner, and limitations within which force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied to achieve military objectives in accordance with national policy and the law. …
2. The use of force, and in particular, the authority to use deadly force by Canadian forces to accomplish a mission receives detailed scrutiny and attention by the senior leadership of the CF. Every member of the CF who may be required to use force in self-defence or to accomplish a mission must have a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the ROE and supporting doctrine.
207. FACTORS INFLUENCING ROE
1. In order to control the use of military force, the Canadian government and military staffs will be guided by the following factors:
a. Legal Prescriptions. Any use of force must comply with Canadian domestic law and international law. International laws include:
(1) The Law of Armed Conflict. The body of international law that governs the conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict. 
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, §§ 101.2, 102.2, 104.2, 105.3, 205 and 207.1.a(1).
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders):
INTRODUCTION
Each military commander is responsible for respect for the law of war within his sphere of command. Within his unit, he is in particular responsible for the instruction of the law of war in order to induce his troops to adopt a behaviour in conformity with the law and above all vis-à-vis specifically protected persons and objects.
I. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY IN MILITARY OPERATIONS
As a rule, the commander of the forces carrying out a military operation is responsible for ensuring respect for the law of war. This responsibility extends to the civilian domain to the extent required by the law of war, in particular regarding cooperation with the civilian authorities. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter IV, Introduction and Section I; see also Chapter IV, Conclusion.
In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states:
Controlling execution is the final step in the command process. The aim is to ensure that the orders given to subordinates are executed as intended by the commander.
Control helps strengthen order and discipline. It enables the military commander to intervene and, if necessary, to correct the way an action is carried out or to take any appropriate measures.
Control allows the military commander to ensure that his subordinates respect and ensure respect for the law of war in their sphere of responsibility. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section IV; see also Chapter II, Section I.
Colombia
Colombia’s Directive on IHL (1993) defines its own aim as “defining general principles and giving instructions towards the strict respect of the rules of International Humanitarian Law”. It also states:
The Ministry of National Defence gives instructions aimed at intensifying the development of capacity-building programmes of the members of the public force, on themes referring to the respect for Human Rights and the application of the rules of International Humanitarian Law, with a view to prevent and correct conduct which violates those rules …
The General Command of the Military Forces and the Direction of the National Police [g]ive the Commanders of the public force the necessary instructions for each Force to intensify, develop and complete, in the corresponding formation and capacity-building courses of their personnel, the relevant studies on the respect for Human Rights and ensure the obligatory application of International Humanitarian Law. 
Colombia, Normas de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Directiva Permanente No. 017, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 17 August 1993, Sections I.(A), IV.(A) and IV.(B)(1).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
I.2. Obligation to respect and to ensure respect
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” (Common Article 1 to the four Geneva Conventions)
To do this, States undertake
- to give orders and instructions to ensure observance of the Conventions, and to supervise the execution. 
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, pp. 35–36.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) defines rules of engagement as “instructions established by the competent political or military authority to determine the circumstances of and the limitations to the use of force by the armed forces when, confronted with other forces, they undertake or continue armed engagement”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 107.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Superiors shall only issue orders which are in conformity with international law.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 141.
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996), referring to common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, states:
It necessarily follows that each soldier of the [German Armed Forces] must know the rules of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. This is relevant especially for superiors who may give orders only by respecting the rules of public international law. 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, §§ 107 and 108.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
Every individual service man or service woman is personally responsible for observing the rules of international humanitarian law. Superiors may give orders only in compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 2.
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) emphasizes that the commander of the forces engaged must provide “guidance to subordinates”. It also states that each mission “has to be consistent with the L.O.W. [law of war]”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, pp. 39 and 49.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Officers are required to know the rules of warfare and to endeavour to adapt them and apply them to conditions of engagement.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 3.
The manual further states:
The rules of warfare are binding upon every soldier in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] … Headquarters Order 33.0133 (valid from 20/7/1982) requires an IDF soldier to behave according to the directives contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention. For every campaign order that is liable to develop into a situation to which the Geneva Convention might be applicable, and for any campaign order prior to an operation being conducted close to a site of cultural heritage protected under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, these directives will be specified to the soldiers. Copies of the Conventions can be found in all of the IDF’s registration offices. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 11.
In addition, the manual states:
The Military Jurisdiction Law defines various offences that constitute a breach of the rules of war. Both General Headquarters orders and the code of conduct require IDF soldiers to comply with the rules of warfare that have been recognised by Israel. Many countries publish a “Guide to the Rules of Warfare” – a collection of guidelines for soldiers covering their conduct in the battlefield. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 41.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Nepal
Nepal’s IHL and IHRL Integration Order (2008) states:
The Nepalese Army has issued various human rights directives to its troops to abide by while conducting security operations in accordance to IHL and IHRL. At the same time it had issued a special human rights directive while conducting counter insurgency operations in the past. Added to that, human rights focused instructions have been included in various Operational Directives. 
Nepal, IHL and IHRL Integration Order for the Nepalese Army, Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters Kathmandu, File Ref. 14644/9/A/064/65/22/874, 22 February 2008, § 3.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states:
States parties to law of war treaties must take all necessary measures to ensure respect for their obligations under these treaties. They must give orders and instructions which ensure their respect and must supervise their execution. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-1.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “compliance [with the humanitarian law of war] should take place at all times … The commanding officer is responsible for the behaviour of the unit(s) under his orders”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1074.
In its chapter on the prevention and punishment of war crimes, the manual states:
The states which are parties to the conventions on the law of war should take all necessary steps to meet their obligations under those conventions. They should give orders and instructions to ensure compliance and supervise their application. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1103.
In its chapter on peace operations, under the heading “Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces”, the manual states: “Members of the armed forces must scrupulously obey the rules of national and international law.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, p. 198.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) directs “all officers and men to observe strictly the following rules during operations. (These instructions must be read in conjunction with the Geneva Convention.)” It also states: “To be successful in our tasks as soldiers these rules must be carefully observed. I will not be proud of any member of the Armed Forces under my command who fails to observe them.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, §§ 4 and 5.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
When missions are given to subordinates, they shall be accompanied by the rules of engagement and/or instructions for conduct that is compatible with international humanitarian law (for example, in special situations such as combat between irregular forces or opposition movements). 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas , Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 25(a)(11), p. 227.
Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines was issued “to effectively pursue the intents and purposes of Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393 dated September 9, 1991, directing the Armed Forces and National Police to reaffirm their adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the conduct of security/police operations” and “for strict compliance of every member of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] in all levels of command/office”. 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
In their service activities commanding officers shall be guided by generally accepted principles and rules of international humanitarian law that oblige them:
a) in peace time:
- to organize and be personally involved in the dissemination of international humanitarian law amongst the subordinated personnel; to ensure that it is studied within the process of training and education of servicemen drawing their attention to the fact that the legislation of the Russian Federation provides for criminal responsibility for some breaches of international humanitarian law;
- to constantly maintain law and order and stern military discipline thus ensuring that the subordinates strictly observe the rules of international humanitarian law in the event of armed conflict;
- to invite the commander’s assistant on legal matters acting as the legal advisor in the event of armed conflict to take part in organizing combat training;
- to supervise the training of medical personnel and legal service officers related to studying and carrying out the rules of international humanitarian law;
b) in the event of armed conflict:
- to set an example in the respect of international humanitarian law rules;
- to ensure knowledge and strict respect of international humanitarian law by the subordinated personnel;
- to repress violations of international humanitarian law by the subordinated personnel, if any, call to account the offenders and report to the superior commander. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 10.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Combat Manual (2005) states:
When carrying out an assigned mission, every commander, within the framework of his responsibilities, must take into account the norms of international humanitarian law, and when making a decision, must ensure that they are respected by his subordinates. 
Russian Federation, Combat Manual on the Preparation and Conducting of Combined-Arms Battles (Boevoi ustav po podgotovke i vedeniu obshevoiskovogo boya), Part 3, Platoon, Subdivision, Tank, endorsed by Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces No. 19, 24 February 2005, § 24.
Russian Federation
The Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (2007) provides:
General Obligations of Commanders (Superiors)
77. … In the course of carrying out combat missions by a military unit, the commander (superior) guided by requirements of field manuals, must take measures aimed at respecting IHL rules and bring to disciplinary responsibility those guilty of breaching them. In the event of discovering constituent elements of criminal offence in the actions (omissions) of his subordinates, the commander of the unit shall institute criminal proceedings, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
83. A commander (superior) must improve his personal professional level of training and methods of management of a unit:
- know the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation within the limits of the legal minimum and IHL rules and act in strict compliance therewith, and to demand that his subordinates respect them. 
Russian Federation, Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Ustav vnutrennei sluzhbi vooruzhennikh sil Rossiskoi Federacii), approved by Decree No. 1495 of the President of the Russian Federation, 10 November 2007, §§ 77 and 83.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
Criminal Liability / Responsibility under LOAC [law of armed conflict]
Introduction
The command of the armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which enforces compliance with the law of war.
To effectively respect the law of war, armed forces need generally applicable rules.
Armed forces cannot be taught different ways of behaviour for international and no[n]-international armed conflicts.
5.2 Command Responsibility
The LOAC places a duty upon states to respect and ensure respect for “the instruments” in all circumstances. This also places a legal responsibility on all commanders of forces engaged in military operations to ensure the enforcement of the LOAC in all circumstances.
Appropriate guidance, eg rules of engagement, must be given to subordinates to cover specific circumstances. Such guidance will[:]
- Ensure consistent action and behaviour; and
- Prepare subordinate commanders, especially those in command of independent missions, to take the necessary measures required by the situation by themselves.
Commanders are bound by similar rules of engagement in a non-international conflict.
Operational Planning
- When issuing orders to subordinates, commanders must ensure that:
- Subordinates are only issued with orders that are realistic and that can be executed legally in accordance with the LOAC;
- Orders contain all the necessary information needed to ensure respect for the LOAC[.] 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 5, pp. 235, 239, 241 and 242.
[emphasis in original]
The manual also states:
Protection of Marked Cultural and Religious Objects (Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954)
- Military Measures (Article 7)
- Parties to the Convention must, in times of peace, introduce measures into their military regulations and instructions to ensure observance [of] this Convention and to foster in their members a spirit of respect for the culture and cultural property of all peoples. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 134 and 136.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
The 1907 Hague Convention IV already provided that “the high contracting parties shall issue instructions to their Armed Forces which shall be in conformity with the rules that have been adopted”, rules that were contained in the [Hague] Conventions of 1899 and 1907. This obligation takes shape in the existence of military manuals which include the norms applicable to armed conflicts. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, Annex A.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
The Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 provides that the “Contracting powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention”. These regulations were established in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The obligation was fulfilled by producing military manuals setting forth the rules applicable to armed conflict. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, Annex A.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) notes: “The [1907] IV Hague Convention … provides that contracting powers shall give their land forces instructions that comply with the Convention.” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.1, p. 91.
The manual adds: “For the Swedish defence forces, the commander-in-chief has laid down eight servicemen’s rules pointing out what every combatant must bear in mind in combat situations.” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.2, p. 95.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Manual of Internal Service of the Armed Forces (2001) states:
The military serviceman is obliged to know and observe undeviatingly the Law of Armed Conflict and international rules on the conduct of hostilities, including the rules on the treatment of the wounded, sick and the civilian population in the area of hostilities as well as of prisoners of war. 
Tajikistan, Manual of Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Tajikistan, endorsed by the Decree of the Madjilsi Namoyandagon of Madjlisi Oli [Parliament] of the Republic of Tajikistan No. 273 of 4 April 2001 and promulgated by the Order of the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Tajikistan No. 3 of 2 May 2001, § 19.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that missions assigned to subordinates “shall contain the details necessary to ensure respect for the law of war”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 10.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
States are under a general obligation to issue orders and instructions requiring compliance with the law of armed conflict and to take steps to see that those orders and instructions are observed. There is a specific provision in relation to the handling of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, extending to a requirement to provide for unforeseen situations “in conformity with the general principles” of the Geneva Conventions 1949. These are that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked should be cared for and treated without any adverse distinction. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.2.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) emphasizes that: “The US … ensures observance and enforcement through a variety of national means including … military regulations [and] rules of engagement.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 15-2(e).
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states: “JFCs [joint force commanders] will ensure that all detainees are treated … IAW [in accordance with] … the law of war”. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-11.
The manual further states:
When U.S. forces conduct detainee operations, they must possess the text of the applicable [1949] Geneva Conventions … Because the Armed Forces of the United States comply with the law of war as a matter of DOD [Department of Defense] policy during all operations, this requirement is applicable as a matter of policy to all detention operations. JFCs have the overall responsibility to develop, implement, monitor, and, when necessary, refine standards, policies, and SOPs [standard operating procedures] for detainee operations that are consistent with obligations imposed by law and applicable policy. Pursuant to this obligation, JFCs are responsible to ensure the effective routine review of detention operations. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-14.
The manual quotes a statement by the US President to the UN made on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, 26 June 2004:
The United States … remains steadfastly committed to upholding the [1949] Geneva Conventions, which have been the bedrock of protection in armed conflict for more than 50 years. These Conventions provide important protections designed to reduce human suffering in armed conflict. We expect other nations to treat our service members and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Our Armed Forces are committed to complying with them. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-1.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides:
The appropriate authorities and governmental bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic ensure that all the citizens learn the provisions of this law on civil defence and ensure the preparation of military servicemen of all categories within the framework of training programmes.
If the Azerbaijan Republic is one of the parties to the conflict, the necessary instruction is given to the civilian population in such a conflict area and to the personnel staff of the Armed Forces of the Azerbaijan Republic involved in the solution of this conflict. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 30.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Order No. 637 on the Application of IHL Norms within the Armed Forces (2005), issued by the Minister of Defence, states:
With the aim to implement provisions of the international treaties related to IHL within the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan, I [order that] Deputies of the Minister of Defence, commanders of the Armed Forces and different troops, chiefs of departments, independent sectors and services, commanders of divisions, formations and military units of the Ministry of Defence, chiefs of directions, institutions, organizations and military educational institutions shall ensure the following:
- learning by military servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan provisions related to IHL norms, contained in the Constitution and laws of Azerbaijan, military regulations of the Armed Forces, orders and directives of the Minister of Defence;
- respect for IHL norms by the military servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan during implementation of the demands of the management directives related to provision of combat regulations and combat actions;
- requirements of IHL norms are taken into consideration while elaboration of orders, directives and other service documents related to holding of exercises, trainings and other events. 
Azerbaijan, Order No. 637 on the Application of IHL Norms within the Armed Forces, 2005, § 1.
Colombia
Colombia’s Directive No. 10 (2007), whose objective is to prevent the killing of protected persons, states:
With the objective of strengthening the application of international humanitarian law, preventing homicides of protected persons and strengthening the legitimacy of the Armed Forces, the General Command of the Armed Forces must issue precise orders to all personnel of the armed forces with a view to:
1. Incorporating and respecting the norms of international humanitarian law in the planning, execution and use of force during military operations. 
Colombia, Directive No. 10, 2007, § VI(1).
Hungary
Hungary’s Order of the Minister of Defence on the Adoption of Service Regulations (2005) states that soldiers shall observe “laws pertaining to the service and other internal provisions, including regulations regarding warfare and humanitarian rules”. 
Hungary, Order of the Minister of Defence on the Adoption of Service Regulations, 2005, § 6(a).
The Order further states:
10. Soldiers shall respect international regulations on the conduct of warfare and the protection of victims of war, provisions on protection of citizens, assets, environment and nature, as well as the integrity and inviolability of medical organizations and personnel and religious personnel using distinctive signs regulated in international treaties. The appendix to the Service Regulations … contains the most important regulations of the treaties.
19. Soldiers during foreign service on operational territory:
a) shall be acquainted with and enforce the relevant bilateral and multilateral international agreements, the rules of international humanitarian law (see appendix of this Order), laws and customs of the Host State, the regulations regarding armed missions of international organizations, provisions of operational rules binding on Hungarian corps, as well, issued by the operator headquarters, and the content of the prospectus and the job description;
b) as a superior he shall ensure that his subordinates are acquainted with these regulations to the degree necessary to their tasks and status. 
Hungary, Order of the Minister of Defence on the Adoption of Service Regulations, 2005, §§ 10 and 19(a)–(b).
Russian Federation
In its Order on the Publication of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols (1990), the Russian Ministry of Defence required “the implementation of the instructions concerning the application of the rules of international humanitarian law by the armed forces of the USSR” annexed to the said order, i.e. the Russian Federation’s Military Manual. 
Russian Federation, Order on the Publication of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, 1990, § 1.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Order of the Ministry of Interior on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1996) states:
The heads of departments and [services] of the Office of the [Ministry of Interior] of the Republic of Tajikistan [and] the commanders of military units shall, in time of warfare, be strictly guided by the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in:
1. The Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949:
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in [Armed Forces] in the Field;
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
- [Relative to] the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
- [Relative to] the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
2. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
3. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). 
Tajikistan, Order of the Ministry of Interior on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1996, Article I.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Order of the Minister of Defence on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1996) states:
The Heads of Departments, independent departments and services of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Tajikistan, [and] the commanders of … military units shall, in time of warfare, be strictly guided by the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in:
- the Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949:
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field;
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
- Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
- Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
- 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
- 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). 
Tajikistan, Order of the Minister of Defence on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1996, Article I.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Order of the Committee for State Border Protection on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1998) states:
The Head of Department, independent departments and services of the [Committee for State Border Protection] under the Government of Tajikistan, [and] the commanders of … military units in time of warfare shall be strictly guided by the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in:
1. The Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949:
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in [Armed Forces] in the Field;
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
- [Relative to] the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
- [Relative to] the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
2. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
3. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). 
Tajikistan, Order of the Committee for State Border Protection on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1998, Article I.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s Act on the Internal Service Statute of the Armed Forces (1999), as amended in 2005, provides: “Members of the military service must know and firmly comply with the rules of international humanitarian law undertaken by Ukraine.” 
Ukraine, Act on the Internal Service Statute of the Armed Forces (1999), as amended in 2005, Annex, § 15.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (2008) states:
Article 133. Governing body
The Ministry of the Popular Participation for the Defence is the governing body of the Defence Sector in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law. It establishes the organizational and regulatory structure required to promote, monitor and protect such rights via the adoption of policies and doctrines. 
Venezuela, Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, 2008, Article 133.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (2008), as amended to 2011, states:
Article 136. Governing body
The Ministry of the Popular Participation for the Defence is the governing body of the Defence Sector in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law. It establishes the organizational and regulatory structure required to promote, monitor and protect such rights via the adoption of policies and doctrines. 
Venezuela, Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, 2008, as amended to 2011, Article 136.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
At the international level, the State obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is found in Article 1 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and has acquired customary status.
[T]he general obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is the foundation for a number of more specific duties such as … the duty to give the necessary orders and instructions to members of the armed forces to ensure their respect for and compliance with international humanitarian law as well as to provide the necessary training. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 61.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] shall once again instruct the combat forces, down to the level of the lone soldier in the field, of this commitment by our forces based on law and morality – and, according to the state, even on utilitarian considerations – through concrete instructions which will prevent, to the extent possible, and even in severe situations, incidents which are inconsistent with the rules of humanitarian law. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgment, 8 April 2002.
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.
Algeria
During the Algerian war of independence, the leaders of the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) emphasized:
The laws of war have always been respected by our side. Formal instructions have been given to the combatants during their political education already at the beginning of the Algerian Revolution and have been made the object of directives … These directives have been repeated, clarified and codified since the Congress of 20 August 1956. 
El Moudjahid, Vol. 1, p. 440.
Australia
At an Australian Army media briefing on 16 April 2003, called to promulgate the results of an investigation into allegations made against certain Australian soldiers who were part of the UN-mandated INTERFET (International Force for East Timor) operations in East Timor, 1999–2000, the Chief of Army stated the following in response to a question on the treatment of detainees, particularly in relation to allegations concerning the deprivation of food, water and sleep:
We apprehended some militia, we apprehended some people who turned out to be civilians. We needed information from them.
At all times that information was acquired using the Geneva Convention. At all times that information was acquired by people who were thoroughly well-trained, who were well-supervised and used very high professional standards.
But this was not meant to be a four star resort. They had information that could go to the safety and the protection of the civilian population, the safety and protection of our own people. And we have rights and obligations, but also the authority under the Geneva Convention, to interrogate people. And that’s what happened.
Some of that meant that they probably didn’t get the sort of food that they might have liked. Our soldiers were on ration packs. Some have meant that they were treated in a robust manner, but all of the time they were treated properly and correctly under the Geneva Convention.
At a later point during the briefing, the Director of Personnel Operations, Army, added to the Chief of Army’s response:
Now, some of the allegations that we’re talking about here relate to activity in an interrogation centre. And further information in relation to your previous question, there were allegations that the detainees were deprived of hygiene and sleep and food. There was no evidence at all that any of the detainees were deprived of any hygiene facilities or food. But certainly we found that they were deprived of some sleep.
And, as you’ve heard from the Chief of the Army, that this in itself in no way contradicted any of our international obligations, particularly in relation to the law of armed conflict or in relation to the Geneva Convention.
But what we did find, and a lesson that we’ve learnt from this, is some of our guidance that we provide to our practitioners is very general. And what we have found that we need to do is make that more definitive. Make it more black and white. This is what we can do under our international obligations and this is what we cannot do.
So in the general comments you heard about some of our procedural amendments that we intend to make. These are policy changes that we intend to make to make it far more definitive for our practitioners. 
Australia, Media briefing by the Chief of Army on the results of an investigation into certain allegations made against Australian Soldiers in East Timor during 1999, 16 April 2003.
Belgium
In 2001, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Belgium stated:
Paragraph 7 of the Code of Conduct of the Department of Defence (May 1999) also refers to human rights and international humanitarian law:
“7. I undertake … to respect … international humanitarian law in all circumstances.” 
Belgium, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 8 July 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/52/Add.2, submitted 14 August 2001, § 21.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated:
Internally, in May, 2005, the Headquarters of the Armed Forces expressly ordered all officers not to recruit children under the age of 18 and instructed them that all offenders would be severely punished. The Auditor General of the Congolese armed forces then expressly instructed all senior auditors and garrison auditors to prosecute any individual who broke the law and the aforementioned military orders.  
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 2008, UN Doc. CRC/C/COD/2, submitted 23 October 2007, § 212.
El Salvador
In 2009, in its sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, El Salvador stated:
To fulfil commitments with regard to … respect for international humanitarian law, the Inter-institutional Committee on International Humanitarian Law in El Salvador (CIDIH-ES) was created to advise the Government on measures for the application, interpretation and dissemination of international humanitarian law in order to meet its commitments. The Committee was legally established by Executive Decree No. 118 of 4 November 1997, published in the Diario Oficial No. 215, vol. No. 337, of 18 November 1997. 
El Salvador, Sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 2 June 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SLV/6, submitted 13 January 2009, § 78.
France
The instructions given to the French armed forces for the conduct of Opération Mistral, simulating a military operation under the right of self-defence or a mandate of the UN Security Council, in a part dealing with the “eight fundamental rules of international humanitarian law”, state: “The parties to the conflict shall give the necessary orders and instructions in order to insure the respect of these rules and will supervise the execution thereof.” 
France, Etat-major de la Force d’Action Rapide, Ordres pour l’Opération Mistral, 1995, Section 6, § 67.
Germany
In 2007, in a written reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Basic Law and international law in deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces: Treatment of persons taken into custody”, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
1. What rules of engagement apply to the arrest or detention of persons by members of German armed forces abroad, for example in the context of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM or the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] mandate?
The international law and constitutional law bases of the deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces in certain circumstances authorize the deployed German service men and women to take persons into custody. The concrete requirements for this follow from the international law and constitutional law bases, concretized in the rules of engagement and the pocket card “Rules on the use of military force”.
The rules of engagement generally are determined by:
- the international law bases of the respective deployment (for example UN mandate),
- the constitutional law parameters of the Basic Law,
- the concrete parameters of the Federal Government’s deployment decision, to which the German Parliament has given its approval,
- the operation plan of the respective system of mutual collective security, in whose context the deployment is taking place,
- the internationally agreed Rules of Engagement (RoE).
It is not necessary to specially emphasize that the protection of human rights has always been and is a formative element especially also of the Federal Armed Forces’ deployments abroad.
As regards the treatment of persons taken into custody by German service men or women during deployments abroad, the Federal Ministry of Defence, by order of 26 April 2007, for all deployments abroad of the German Armed Forces enacted actualizations and concretizations for the protection of the human rights of those persons:
1. All persons taken into custody are entitled to treatment and accommodation consistent with human dignity, in particular to respect for their persons and their honour, as well as to protection against acts of violence and intimidation.
2. Custody is to be implemented with respect to the proportionality principle. Force against persons in custody is permissible only within the limits of the applicable pocket card in the respective case. Women may be searched only by female soldiers, men by male soldiers. Physical examinations are to be carried out by a male doctor or a female doctor. Objects found can be confiscated. An admittance protocol and a file per person with a photograph of the [face] are to be created promptly. Searches and confiscations are to be recorded in writing.
3. Promptly and – if necessary – with the assistance of an interpreter, persons taken into custody are to be informed of the reason for detaining or arresting them.
4. Persons taken into custody who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence are to be presumed innocent until the competent court in a trial consistent with the rule of law on the basis of recognized means of evidence has issued a conviction in a final judgement. If the person taken into custody is accused of criminal behaviour, that person is free to give evidence on the matter or to remain silent, and to enlist the services of a defence counsel at any time. That instruction on these rights has been given must be recorded and the record added to the file.
5. Furthermore, persons taken into custody have the right to refuse to give evidence insofar as they would incriminate themselves or close relatives. Questionings must only be conducted by trained staff (military police, officers or legal advisers), in a language the person taken into custody understands, and in compliance with these provisions. A transcript of every hearing must be produced and added to the file.
6. Adequate food, clothing and medical attention must be provided. Religious customs and traditions must be respected. Immediately after persons have been taken into custody, their state of health must be documented by a female or male doctor of the Federal Armed Forces as well as before they are released or transferred.
7. Persons taken into custody are promptly either to be transferred to the competent authorities or to be released, insofar as they are no longer a danger. Release and transfer are to be documented. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is to be informed of the taking into custody, release or transfer by the responsible contingent leader of the respective German deployment contingent.
8. The transfer of the persons taken into custody to security forces of third States is prohibited if there are factors indicating that respect for human rights standards is not guaranteed. Before every transfer, in every case, the competent legal adviser of the deployment contingent DEU is to be involved, who, as the case may be, receives instructions on how to proceed from the Federal Ministry of Defence. The involvement is to be documented.
9. If German nationals are taken into custody in the areas of deployment, they shall not be transferred to foreign State authorities. The Federal Ministry of Defence is promptly to be involved via the competent German legal adviser of the deployment contingent DEU.
10. Human rights violations which come to the knowledge of the deployment contingent are to be reported by the competent contingent leader of the respective German deployment contingent in the framework of the national reporting system.
In order to further take into account the characteristics of the individual deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces (UNIFIL, [KFOR], EUFOR, OEF, ISAF), this order was supplemented by five individual instructions by the Federal Ministry of Defence/coordination staff for deployment tasks [Koordinierungsstab für Einsatzaufgaben – KSEA] of 27 April 2007. In these individual instructions not only a prompt information duty of the Contingent Commander of the DEU Deployment Contingent (KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt) vis-à-vis the ICRC in connection with the holding, transfer or release of persons by the respective German deployment contingent was codified, the KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt was also expressly made responsible for ensuring that persons taken into custody are at all times treated in compliance with the order of 26 April 2007.
For OEF and ISAF in particular applies in addition:
OEF:
1. The right to self-defence according to Article 51 of the UN Charter in conjunction with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty allows DEU forces in the framework of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) to detain Taliban/Al Kaida.
2. All persons detained in the context of such deployments are to be treated in accordance with the order of 26 April 2007. The KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt is responsible for ensuring this.
3. Insofar as persons are detained in the context of OEF, the KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt is under the obligation promptly to inform the ICRC. The information obligation also applies to the release, transfer to third parties, as well as in the case of hospitalisation or death of a detained person.
4. The ICRC has the right to inspect all facilities which serve as accommodation for detained persons.
5. Currently, an agreement is being prepared between Germany (DEU) and Afghanistan (AFG), in order to ensure that persons to be transferred to Afghan State authorities are treated in accordance with the customary law and treaty law human rights obligations applicable to Afghanistan, and that the death penalty is not enforced against them. Until such an agreement is concluded, every transfer of persons is subject to the decision by the Federal Ministry of Defence, if for the crime of which they are suspected the death penalty is to be expected in Afghanistan. In order to assess whether the crime in question can result in the death penalty, first of all the respectively responsible legal adviser is to be involved.
ISAF:
1. On the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions (UN SC Res) 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), last extended by UN SC Res 1707 of 12 September 2006, deployment contingent ISAF DEU is authorized to take all measures necessary to fulfill the mandate, in particular to take the measures necessary to maintain security, to provide security-related assistance and therefore also to temporarily detain persons in order to implement the mandate.
2. Persons temporarily detained are, if possible, to be released within 96 hours or to be transferred to the competent Afghan authorities. For the duration of the custody, the persons are to be treated in accordance with the order of 26 April 2007. The KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt is responsible for this.
3. Currently, an agreement is being prepared between Germany (DEU) and Afghanistan (AFG), in order to ensure that persons transferred from ISAF to Afghanistan are treated in accordance with the international customary law and treaty law human rights obligations applicable to Afghanistan, and that the death penalty is not enforced against them. Until such an agreement is concluded, every transfer of persons is subject to the decision by the Federal Ministry of Defence, if for the crime of which they are suspected the death penalty is to be expected in Afghanistan. In order to assess whether the crime in question can result in the death penalty, first of all the respectively responsible legal adviser is to be involved.
4. The KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt ISAF is under the obligation promptly to inform the ICRC of the detention. The information obligation also applies with regard to transfers to Afghan authorities, release, as well as for the case of hospitalization or death of a detained person.
5. The obligation of the contingent commander directly to inform the ICRC does not apply if it is verified that the ICRC has already been informed by HQ ISAF.
6. The ICRC has the right to inspect all facilities which serve as accommodation for detained persons.
5. What legal guarantees apply to persons taken into custody in the context of deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces, and in which laws, treaties or agreements are these guarantees codified (please name exactly)?
The legal guarantees for persons taken into custody in the context of deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces are individually listed in the order of 26 April 2007 mentioned. We refer to the reply to question 1. With it, inter alia the existing international law obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany, such as Geneva Convention III, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) as well as constitutional law parameters are implemented. With a view to the deployment of the Federal Armed Forces in Afghanistan, the Federal Government aims for a bilateral agreement with the Afghan Government on the transfer of detained persons, with the objective to ensure that transferred persons are treated in accordance with the international customary law and treaty law human rights obligations also applicable to Afghanistan, and that the death penalty is not enforced against them. A draft text agreed within the Federal Government has been made available to the Afghan Government.
8. Before the order of 26 April 2007, have there been comparable orders or instructions?
If yes, what did they say?
If no, on what basis have Germans participated in arrests during deployments abroad since 1994?
We refer to the reply to question 1.
In the framework of concrete operations, apart from generally binding orders/instructions, individual instructions are regularly given, and while fulfilling their missions soldiers are bound also by the content of the pocket card respectively applicable. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Alexander Bonde, Volker Beck (Cologne), further Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN – BT-Drs. 16/6174, Basic Law and international law in deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces: Treatment of persons taken into custody, BT-Drs. 16/6282, 29 August 2007, pp. 5–10.
Israel
An Israeli Chief of Staff Order of 1982 refers to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and states: “IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers are obliged to conduct themselves in accordance with the directives contained in the above[-mentioned Geneva] Conventions.” 
Israel, IDF Order of the Chief of Staff No. 33.0133, Discipline – Conduct in accordance with the international conventions to which the State of Israel is a party, 20 July 1982, § 3.
The Order also refers to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and states: “IDF soldiers are obliged to observe the directives of the said [1954 Hague] Convention, as well as the Regulations and attendant Protocols.” 
Israel, IDF Order of the Chief of Staff No. 33.0133, Discipline – Conduct in accordance with the international conventions to which the State of Israel is a party, 20 July 1982, § 8.
Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
The IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces’] emphasis on compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict was also directly incorporated into the rules of engagement for the Gaza Operation. The operational order for the Operation in Gaza specifically stated that “[a]ll IDF activities are subject to the principles and rules of international law.” These rules and principles were further detailed in the order, which emphasised four guiding principles that applied in an integrated and cumulative manner: military necessity, distinction, proportionality and humanity. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 222; see also §§ 209–210.
Nepal
In 2007, in its comments to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Nepal stated:
Sustained efforts have been made to inculcate human rights values in the security personnel. They have been continuously sensitized to uphold the human rights and humanitarian law in the discharge of their duties. Clear directives have been issued to them to abide by the human rights obligations. 
Nepal, Comments by the Government of Nepal to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, 29 January 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/NPL/CO/2/Add.1, submitted 1 June 2007, § 22.
Poland
In 2005, in his decision on compliance with principles for the protection of cultural property in the activities of the armed forces, Poland’s Minister of National Defence stated:
2. The following tasks and responsibilities shall be assigned to senior staff of the Ministry of National Defence, directors (heads) of organizational cells of the MOD [Ministry of Defence] and commanders of categories of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland in matters relating to the protection of cultural property:
1) The Under-Secretary of State for Social Affairs:
a) represents the national defence agency in alliance contacts with the armies of the States Parties of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and in contacts with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and other governmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with the problems of the protection of cultural property,
b) coordinates cooperation between the national defence agency and units of the central and local administration and non-governmental organizations, including collective organisations, for the protection of cultural property in the event of threats in war- and peace-time,
c) creates favourable conditions for the functioning of a collective movement for the protection of cultural property in the military environment;
2) The PA Chief of General Staff ensures:
a) compliance by all levels of command with the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in the process of decision-making on combat operations, operations during peacekeeping missions and alliance operations, action to prevent or combat the effects of terrorism, catastrophes and natural disasters or their consequences, and during military training and exercises,
b) incorporation of the provisions of the Convention into military regulations and instructions,
c) the cooperation of subordinate services in the development of the requisite materials relating to the protection of cultural property in the event of a threat in war- or peace-time,
d) that troops have topographic maps with the most important cultural properties in the country and in any potential theatre of military operations marked with the special international topographical sign,
e) conditions for operations relating to the protection of cultural property within MOD Crisis Headquarters and cooperation with National Crisis Headquarters,
3) The Commanders of the categories of the Armed Forces:
a) request – as specified in separate legislation – the inclusion in the organizational structures of troops under their command, on the operational level in “P” and “W” time, and at the tactical level in “W” time – of specialists (cells) in matters relating to the protection of cultural property and other issues related to the application of international humanitarian law of armed conflicts,
c) supervise the implementation of procedures for the protection of cultural property during operations by troops under their command;
5) The Director of the Department of Defence Education and Promotion:
a) organizes and supervises the overall operations relating to the dissemination of information on and building awareness of protection of cultural property issues in the military environment,
b) compiles catalogues of historical monuments for use in operational decisions in the course of combat operations for national and alliance (Polish territory) troops and also during peace-keeping missions and alliance operations, action to prevent or combat terrorism, catastrophes and natural disasters, and also during military training and exercises,
c) prepares a database of cultural property for computer command posts,
d) develops, in cooperation with the PA General Staff, draft instructions and directives concerning:
- ways to identify cultural sites located in a zone of military activities and the conduct of operational activities, in accordance with the provisions of international conventions,
- how to protect cultural property during military operations of a peace-keeping nature,
- threats in time of peace (catastrophes and natural disasters)
g) maintains a register, and monitors the status, security and protection used by the national defence agency, of sites recorded in the register of movable historical monuments;
6) The Director of the Infrastructure Department:
a) organizes, coordinates and supervises in peacetime, tasks associated with the obligations of organizational units of the agency resulting from the exercise of sustainable management in relation to immovable historical monuments, on the principles set out in universally binding provisions on the organization and manner of protection of historical monuments in the event of armed conflict and crisis situations,
c) maintains a register, and monitors the status, security and protection of immovable historical monuments that are sustainably managed by organizational units of the national defence agency.
3. The provisions of paragraph 2.2 b, 2.3.a, and 2.4 of the decision shall be implemented in official activities by 31 December 2007. 
Poland, Decision No. 250/MON by the Minister of National Defence on compliance with the principles for the protection of cultural property in the activities of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland, 4 August 2005, published in MON Official Journal of 2005, No. 15, item 135, §§ 2–3.
United States of America
In 1972, the General Counsel of the US Department of Defense considered that:
Rules of engagement are directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States Forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with the enemy.
These rules are the subject of constant review and command emphasis. They are changed from time to time to conform to changing situations and the demands of military necessity. One critical and unchanging factor is their conformity to existing international law as reflected in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as with the principles of customary international law of which UNGA Resolution 2444 (XXIII) is deemed to be a correct restatement. 
United States, Letter from J. Fred Buzhardt, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Refugees of the Committee on the Judiciary, 22 September 1972, AJIL, Vol. 67, 1973, p. 124.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In Order No. 985-1/91 issued in 1991, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) stated: “YPA units have the duty to secure in the area of their operations full and unconditional implementation of rules of international law of armed conflicts and suppress violations of those rules.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the YPA, Legal Department, Order No. 985-1/91, 3 October 1991, § 1.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1991, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) issued Order No. 579 aiming “to completely eliminate violations of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts in Croatia” according to which “YPA units shall ensure full and consistent respect of norms of international humanitarian law in all areas under its jurisdiction”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the YPA, Political Department, Order No. 579, 14 October 1991, preamble and § 1.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights called upon States “to make possible respect for their obligations in situations of conflict by, inter alia: … adopting suitable instructions for and training of their armed forces so that they know that all forms of sexual violence and sexual slavery are criminal and will be prosecuted”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1999/16, 26 August 1999, § 11(a).
UN Verification Mission in Guatemala
In 1995, in his first report concerning the conflict in Guatemala, the Director of MINUGUA stated:
The Mission recommends to URNG [Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca] that it should issue precise instructions to its combatants to refrain from placing at risk persons wounded in the armed conflict and from endangering ambulances and duly identified health workers who assist such wounded persons. 
MINUGUA, Director, First report, UN Doc. A/49/856, 1 March 1995, § 194.
UN Verification Mission in Guatemala
In 1995, in his second report concerning the conflict in Guatemala, the Director of MINUGUA observed that:
Verification has uncovered cases in which the Government failed to guarantee the right to integrity and security of person in terms of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the threat of such treatment … The Mission reiterates its recommendation that the Government transmit specific instructions to military and police officers in order to prevent these acts, warning them that such acts are crimes subject to disciplinary, administrative and criminal penalties. 
MINUGUA, Director, Second report, UN Doc. A/49/929, 29 June 1995, § 179.
The Director of MINUGUA further stated:
The Mission recommends that URNG [Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca] issue precise instructions to its combatants to refrain from causing unnecessary harm to individuals and property, to take due care not to create additional risks to life in attacking military targets and, in particular, to end the practice of laying mines or explosives in areas where civilians work, live or circulate. 
MINUGUA, Director, Second report, UN Doc. A/49/929, 29 June 1995, § 197.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1965)
The 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 adopted a resolution on application of the Geneva Conventions by the United Nations Emergency Forces in which it recommended that “the Governments of countries making contingents available to the United Nations give their troops – in view of the paramount importance of the question – … orders to comply with [the 1949 Geneva Conventions]”. 
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October 1965, Res. XXV, § 2.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
In the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants urged all States to make every effort to “adopt and implement, at the national level, all appropriate regulations, laws and measures to ensure respect for international humanitarian law applicable in the event of armed conflict and to punish violations thereof”. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § II(5).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In 1980, in a report on the situation of human rights in Argentina, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended that the Argentine Government
instruct all the officials and agents responsible for the maintenance of public order, the security of the state, and the custody of detainees, with respect to the rights of detainees, particularly as regards the prohibition of all cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and … inform them of the sanctions to which they become liable in the event that they violate these rights. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Argentina, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.49 Doc. 19 corr.1, 11 April 1980, p. 265.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that instructions and orders shall be given to ensure respect for the law of war including those for the supervision of its execution. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 154.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “It is extremely important for the members of the armed forces stationed in the Gulf to be aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law. Proper instructions must be issued to this effect.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 14 December 1990, § IV, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 25
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated:
The parties to the conflict must ensure that the members of their armed forces as well as all military and paramilitary forces acting under their responsibility are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law. To that effect, it is essential that specific instructions to ensure respect for such obligations be issued. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § V, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 505.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated:
The parties concerned must ensure that all the military and paramilitary forces and other militias for whose actions they are responsible are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law. It is essential that instructions calculated to safeguard respect for those obligations are reiterated. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, Geneva, 23 June 1994, § V, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1309.
Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN)
In 1989, in the context of the conflict in El Salvador, following a period of resurgence of violence marked by bomb explosions in a central market and attacks on political figures, military officers and municipal employees, the Chief of Staff of the FMLN publicly recognized that “numerous civilians had fallen victim to its actions and accordingly recommended to its officers and combatants measures to avoid these occurrences in the future”. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 1988–1989, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76 Doc. 10, 18 September 1989, Chapter IV (El Salvador), p. 166.