Practice Relating to Rule 87. Humane Treatment

Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3.
Additional Protocol I
Article 75(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances. 
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 75(1). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.
Additional Protocol II
Article 4(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 4(1). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Article 5 of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being.” 
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the Eighteenth Ordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Nairobi, 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev.5, Article 5.
Kampala Convention
Article 3(1)(d) of the 2009 Kampala Convention establishes an obligation for States Parties to “respect and ensure respect and protection of human rights of internally displaced persons, including humane treatment”. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 3(1)(d).
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 4 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 75(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 4.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under Paragraph 1 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the parties committed themselves to respect and ensure respect for common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 75(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 1.
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 4(1) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides: “Persons hors de combat and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities … shall be … treated humanely.” 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part IV, Article 4(1).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 7.1 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides:
Persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations, including civilians, members of armed forces who have laid down their weapons and persons placed hors de combat by reason of sickness, wounds or detention, shall, in all circumstances, be treated humanely. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 7.1.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraph 10 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provides:
Victims should be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity and human rights, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure their safety, physical and psychological well-being and privacy, as well as those of their families. The State should ensure that its domestic laws, to the extent possible, provide that a victim who has suffered violence or trauma should benefit from special consideration and care to avoid his or her re-traumatization in the course of legal and administrative procedures designed to provide justice and reparation. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, § 10.
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses
Paragraph 8 of the 2005 Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses declares the commitment of UN Member States to “the development and maintenance of fair and efficient criminal justice institutions, including the humane treatment of all those in pretrial and correctional facilities, in accordance with applicable international standards.” 
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/177 of 16 December 2005, § 8.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) incorporates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and, in respect of occupied territories, states that protected persons “shall be treated, at all times, with humanity”. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, §§ 8.001 and 4.010.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) considers that, in the course of armed conflicts not of an international character, “all persons who do not directly participate in the hostilities shall be treated with humanity in all circumstances”. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 7.04.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “The general rule is that persons are to be treated humanely.” It also states: “An obligation is imposed on all parties to deal humanely with protected persons.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 945 and 953.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “All persons are to be treated humanely in all circumstances.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.45.
The manual further states: “An obligation is imposed on all parties to deal humanely with protected persons.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.58.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states, with reference to common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, that in internal armed conflicts, “persons who do not take a direct part in hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and persons placed hors de combat, must be treated humanely”. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 17 and Chapter IX, § 2.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that all persons hors de combat and who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall be treated humanely. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 4 and Fascicule III, p. 4.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(1).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “Treat humanely all enemies who are in your hands.” 
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. 26.
The Regulations further states:
Persons hors de combat and those who do not directly participate in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and their physical and psychological integrity. These persons must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity. 
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. 31; see also Part I bis, p. 80.
The Regulations also states: “The following acts constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their [Additional] Protocols: … intentionally causing great suffering or inflicting serious injury to body or health; … inhuman or degrading treatment which gives rise to outrages upon personal dignity”. 
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. 115; see also Part I bis, p. 26.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 31.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all regular combatants hors de combat”. 
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, § 421(1).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that members of the armed forces are obliged “to treat humanely … all regular combatants hors de combat”. 
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. 256, § 612.
The manual, in a section entitled “Safeguarding the enemy hors de combat”, also states: “The fundamental principle consists of preserving the human dignity of each victim of war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.” 
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. 105, § 372; see also p. 149, § 432.
The manual, under the heading “Responsibility for Acts or Omissions of Which Subordinates Are Accused”, further states that a commander may be held responsible for any “inhuman treatment” committed by his subordinates. 
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. 99, § 36; see also p. 141, § 421.
The manual also states:
The following acts constitute grave breaches [of IHL]:
a) … inhuman treatment;
b) intentionally causing great suffering or grave infringements of physical or psychological integrity;
c) inhuman or degrading practices which result in outrages upon personal dignity. 
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. 295, § 661.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 31: Humanitarian rules
Every soldier must:
- treat humanely, without distinction, all persons placed hors de combat. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 31.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] provides that all persons in the power of a party to the conflict are entitled to at least a minimum humane treatment.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-7, § 63.
With regard to non-international armed conflicts, the manual incorporates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-2, § 10(a).
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states:
Persons rendered hors de combat (out of combat) and those not directly participating in hostilities shall be respected, protected and treated humanely. This principle specifies three duties towards the victims of war: to respect them, protect them and treat them humanely. These three requirements constitute a harmonious whole. To understand what they imply requires only common sense and good faith. It is the minimum treatment, which must be accorded to allow the individual to lead an acceptable existence. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 203.9.
In its chapter on the treatment of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power and, more specifically, in a section entitled “Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories”, the manual states:
The person, honour, family rights, religious conventions and practices, and manners and customs of protected persons must in all circumstances be respected.
They must be humanely treated and protected against all acts or threats of violence, and against insults and public curiosity. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1118.
In the same chapter, in a section entitled “Additional Protocol I”, the manual further states:
[Additional Protocol I] provides that all persons in the power of a party to the conflict are entitled to at least a minimum of humane treatment without adverse discrimination on grounds of race, gender, language, religion, political discrimination or similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1135.1.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
By Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, gender, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “Soldiers must: … protect [civilians] … against ill-treatment”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section III.
In Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders), the manual also states:
Persons who are hors de combat or not directly taking part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. Such persons must under all circumstances be protected and treated humanely. 
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 I, Fundamental Rules, § 1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states:
In accordance with the international conventions signed or approved by the Central African Government, it is stipulated that during combat servicemen must: … treat all persons hors de combat humanely. 
Central African Republic, Décret 09.411 portant règlement de discipline générale dans les Armées, Ministre de la Défense Nationale, des Anciens Combattants, des Victimes de Guerre, du Désarmement et de la Restructuration de l’Armée, 10 December 2009, Article 12(10).
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) requires soldiers to “give humane treatment to all … enemies in your power”. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 26; see also p. 47.
Colombia
Colombia’s Circular on Fundamental Rules of IHL (1992) provides that “persons hors de combat and who do not participate directly in hostilities … shall be protected and treated in all circumstances with humanity”. 
Colombia, Transcripción Normas Fundamentales del Derecho Humanitario Aplicables en los Conflictos Armados, Circular No. 033/DIPL-SERPO-526, Policía Nacional, Dirección General, Santafé de Bogotá, 14 May 1992, § 1.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) provides that humane treatment is one of the fundamental aspects of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 42.
It states: “In Colombia’s application of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II], the State demonstrates that it respects the fundamental guarantees of humane treatment of persons not participating directly in hostilities”. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 43.
Colombia
Colombia’s Soldiers’ Manual and Instructors’ Manual (1999) underline the importance of humane treatment of the enemy. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 12; Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 22.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in book III, volume 1 (instruction of first-year trainee officers):
II. The fundamental principles of IHL
Just as military operations are based on principles concerning attack, defence, withdrawal, etc., the law of armed conflicts contains a set of well-defined principles. These concrete principles reflect the realities of conflicts. They represent a balance between the principle of humanity and military necessity, and they are valid at all times, in all places, and in all circumstances. It is essential that these rules are known by all combatants. They must permanently be taken into consideration in every activity of assessment, planning, and military training or operation. The following principles can be found throughout the texts of the law of armed conflicts.
II.6. Humane treatment and non-discrimination
All persons must be treated humanely …Persons hors de combat, such as surrendering combatants, combatants in situations of distress – men parachuting from a downed plane, wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons, prisoners of war and other persons captured and detained – must be identified as such and treated humanely. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 12 and 14; see also 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. 13–14 and 24.
Croatia
Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993) instructs soldiers to treat humanely and show respect for persons and their property. 
Croatia, Instructions “Basic Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1993, §§ 1–3.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states that soldiers “must … respect the dignity of defeated enemies”. 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 26.
The Regulations also states: “Combatants must … treat all persons placed hors de combat with humanity”. 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 30(2).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “Persons who do not directly participate in hostilities must in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 31; see also p. 39.
The manual also states that the following “are currently considered as war crimes … if committed against any person not or no longer participating in hostilities: … wilfully causing great suffering … or serious injury to body or health”. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, pp. 50–51.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) requires that all persons in the power of a party, whether combatants or civilians, be treated humanely, according to the laws of war. 
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, pp. 6 and 7.
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis.
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides that persons hors de combat shall be treated humanely. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, §§ 2.1 and 3.2.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides: “Combatants placed hors de combat, certain categories of military personnel, as well as the entire civilian population, must be particularly protected and treated with humanity.” 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, pp. 4 and 5.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states that combatants must be treated humanely. 
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, § 704.
Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “Members of the armed forces should: … Treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 14(b).
Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Enemy combatants who surrender”, states: “Treat them humanely.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 5; see also p. 15.
Guinea
Guinea’s Disciplinary Regulations (2012) states: “In accordance with the international agreements signed by the government of Guinea, military personnel in combat are required … to treat humanely, without distinction, all persons placed hors de combat”. 
Guinea, Règlement de Service dans les Forces Armées, Volume 1: Règlement de Discipline Générale (Service Regulations in the Armed Forces, Volume 1: General Discipline Regulations), 2012 edition, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, approved by Presidential Decree No. D 293/PRG/SGG/2012, 6 December 2012, Article 12(a).
India
India’s Army Training Note (1995) orders troops not to “ill treat any one, and in particular, women and children”. 
India, Army Training Note, Chief of Staff, Army Training Command, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1995, p. 4/24, § 10.
Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that as a general policy, all individuals falling in the power of a party to a conflict should, at a minimum, be treated in accordance with the principles of humanity. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 5.6, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 12.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Even in wartime, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] shall act humanely, as part of Israel’s heritage as a Jewish and democratic state and a member of the family of civilized nations.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 49.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) instructs: “Treat everyone humanely.” 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 250.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “Persons not involved in the fighting because they are not taking part in hostilities, or because they are wounded or have surrendered, or have been detained, must be treated humanely.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, pp. 5–6; see also Précis No. 3, p. 14.
Madagascar
According to Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994), one of the seven fundamental rules of IHL is that “persons placed hors de combat and who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall, in all circumstances, be protected and treated with humanity”. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 91, Rule 1.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that “the refusal to treat with humanity all persons hors de combat” is a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “The States party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions undertake to: … respect human beings and their person, their honour, their dignity.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 80(B).
The manual also states that Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions “stipulates that in the event of armed conflict, protected persons must be treated humanely in all circumstances”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 79; see also §§ 85(A) and 107.
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states regarding enemies who surrender: “Disarm them and treat them humanely.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(n).
In the same section, the Guidelines also states: “Treat all those who do not take part in the hostilities humanely, particularly women, children and persons displaced from their homes.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(w).
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all regular combatants hors de combat”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(1).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that protected persons shall be treated humanely. With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states that persons protected by common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. VIII-2 and XI-1.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides for the punishment of “a war law violation which contains inhuman treatment”. 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-44.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “the humanitarian law of war” limits “military force in order to avoid inhumane use of violence and unnecessary suffering”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0118.
The manual lists “humane conduct” as one of five “generally accepted principles of the humanitarian law of war”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0221 and 0223; see also § 0405, p. 39 and § 1028.
The manual states:
0224. Humane conduct
People who are outside the conflict or no longer able to take part in battle should be protected and humanely treated. The humane treatment of persons is not only a principle of the humanitarian law of war, but also of humanitarian law in general. This means that the principle is not only developed in the humanitarian law of war, but also, for example, in human rights conventions, the law of refugees and other areas of law. A number of standards deriving from human rights conventions or refugee law thus also apply during armed conflicts, especially internal armed conflict or occupation.
d. The individual is entitled to respect for his life, physical, mental and moral integrity and whatever is inseparable from his personality. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0224.
In its chapter on methods and means of warfare, the manual states that “[t]he question whether a non-lethal weapon can be used as a form of warfare will primarily depend on whether such a weapon”, inter alia, “does not conflict with the [principle] of humane treatment”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0477.
In its chapter on the protection of the civilian population, the manual states: “Protected persons must be humanely treated in all circumstances.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0809.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Article 4 of AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II], contain a number of fundamental guarantees of humane treatment that relate to all who are not participating directly in the hostilities, or have ceased to do so. Primarily this means civilians, but also members of the armed forces, dissident militias and armed groups who, due to wounds, sickness or capture, are no longer taking part in the combat or have been placed hors de combat. They must be treated without any negative discrimination on any grounds whatsoever. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1049.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states that the use of methods and means which “violate the principles of humanitarian treatment” must be avoided. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1216.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Protected persons must be humanely treated at all times.” It qualifies “inhuman treatment of protected persons” as a grave breach. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual , DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1137 and 1812.
The manual also states that, in non-international armed conflicts, persons protected by common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1807(1).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996) reproduces common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Nicaragua, Manual de Comportamiento y Proceder de las Unidades Militares y de los Miembros del Ejército de Nicaragua en Tiempo de Paz, Conflictos Armados, Situaciones Irregulares o Desastres Naturales, Ejército de Nicaragua, Estado Mayor General, Asesoría Jurídica del Nicaragua, 1996, Articles 6 and 14.
Peru
In Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Security Forces (1991), respect for the integrity of persons and their human dignity is one of the ten basic rules. 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, Rule 3.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “All persons placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the hostilities must be treated humanely. This means that they must be cared for and can never be attacked; they must be defended and assisted.”  
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 84.b; see also §§ 32.d and 83.a.
The manual contains a similar provision with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Persons placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the hostilities must be treated humanely. This means that they must be cared for and can never be attacked; they must be defended and assisted.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 75(b), p. 274; see also § 33(d), p. 251.
The manual contains a similar provision with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons who are not directly participating in hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 72(a), p. 270.
In a section on the relationship between IHL and human rights law, the manual states:
There are … principles common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions and human rights law which represent a minimum level of protection to which every human person is entitled … [including] [r]espect for life, physical and mental integrity … [and] each individual’s right to security of the person.
Regarding these fundamental guarantees, there is no exception whatsoever and they are binding both in times of peace and in times of armed conflict. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 26, pp. 41–42.
In a section on the human rights obligations of the security forces, the manual further states: “Respect the integrity of individuals and human dignity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 102(b), p. 136.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) provides: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall treat suspects and enemies who are out of combat … humanely and with respect.” 
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, § 2a(3).
Romania
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that it is one of the fundamental principles and rules of IHL that “persons hors de combat (e.g. those who surrender or the wounded) and those not taking a direct part in hostilities … shall be protected and treated humanely”. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 32.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that war victims “shall be granted such a status that would guarantee humane treatment”. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 7.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Under any circumstances international humanitarian law ensures humane treatment during an armed conflict of persons not directly involved in combat operations, including those who have been rendered hors de combat by sickness, injury, detention or any other cause without adverse distinction for reasons of race, colour, faith, birth, wealth or any other similar criteria. 
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, § 4.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
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, § 81.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(1).
Senegal
Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) restates common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Senegal, Le DIH adapté au contexte des opérations de maintien de l’ordre, République du Sénégal, Ministère des Forces Armées, Haut Commandement de la Gendarmerie et Direction de la Justice Militaire, Cabinet, 1999, p. 4.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Treat civilians and enemies in your power with humanity.”  
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 34.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
1.2 Reasons for compliance with LOAC [law of armed conflict] and basic principles thereof.
Fundamental Norms and Values (rules)
The fundamental norms/val[u]es which underlie the LOAC are:
- Persons who are hors de combat (out of combat) and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and their moral and physical integrity. They must in all circumstances be protected and treated humanely without any adverse distinction.
Prohibited Acts against Persons not taking an Active Part in Armed Conflicts
- General Rules
- Protected persons are entitled to respect for:
- Their persons;
- Their honour;
- They must at all times be treated humanely.
1.3 Relationship between LOAC and Human Rights Law and Fundamental Protection Provided under LOAC.
Fundamental Protection under the LOAC
The LOAC grants fundamental protection to persons and objects other than combatants and military objectives. This protection applies to all persons in the power of belligerent parties and neutral states. The protection corresponds to basic humanitarian principles applicable to most nations.
The legal basis for this fundamental protection is found in international treaties.
Examples of the wording of these fundamental rules are:
- The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be respected and protected in all circumstances and treated humanely at all times ([1949] Geneva Conventions I and II article 12).
- POWs [prisoners of war] must at all times be humanely treated ([1949] Geneva Convention III article 13).
The humane treatment of protected persons is the most basic principle of the LOAC. This fundamental principle must be adhered to at all time[s], even where derogation of protection is allowed by the LOAC, eg where the restriction of freedom of movement is justified by military necessity, the right to dignity of persons affected by it must still be respected.
Specific Areas that are Subject to Fundamental Protection
- Honour
- The honour, convictions and religious practices of all persons must be protected at all times.
- These aspects are inherent factors of personality. Protected persons must be spared slander and insult.
1.4 Different Types of armed Conflict and those bound by LOAC
Application: Civil Wars and Non-International Armed Conflicts
Current Op[]inio Juris on Common Article 3 [of the 1949] Geneva Conventions. This article determines that, in the case of armed conflicts not of an international character, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply certain minimum rules. Although originally written for situations of non-international armed conflicts, the current legal opinion is that its contents are so fundamental that it is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. The minimum rules contained in Common article 3 Geneva Conventions are the following:
- Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 1, pp. 13, 16–17, 21, 23–24, 26 and 28–29; see also p. 25.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that “all those who are not entitled to a status affording them special or general protection or more favourable treatment have the right to be treated humanely”. 
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, § 1.4.
The manual also states: “Treat all … enemies in your power with humanity”. 
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, § 10.3.e.(1).
The manual further states that the “duties of medical personnel, as established by the law of armed conflict” include: “treat all persons hors de combat humanely”. 
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, § 9.2.a.(2).(a).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the fundamental guarantees for persons in the power of one party to the conflict as contained in Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are a part of customary international law. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 2.2.3, p. 19.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “Foreigners of enemy nationality who are in the territory of one of the parties to the conflict or in occupied territory must in all cases be treated humanely.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 146.
The manual adds that the 1977 Additional Protocol II and common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions are applicable during internal armed conflicts and contain “some minimal guarantees for persons involved in the conflict”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 4.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states:
Rule 2
I spare persons that surrender or are hors de combat. I can therefore also expect the enemy to treat me humanely.
Rule 5
I treat people that fall into my hands humanely. I disarm them and hand them over to my superior. They have to be protected from any kind of attack. 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rules 2 and 5.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that all persons hors de combat and who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall be treated humanely. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 11, Fascicule II, pp. 4 and 5 and Fascicule III, pp. 4 and 5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that “in the event of a civil war, Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides: a. that persons out of the fighting … because they are wounded … must be treated humanely”, notably they “may not be subjected to any form of violence”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 12, p. 42, § 2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
All persons are to be treated humanely in all circumstances and “without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status or on any other similar criteria”. Their persons, honour, convictions and religious practices must be respected. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.3.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) restates common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 11.
United States of America
According to the US Air Force Pamphlet (1976), common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions “represents the first attempt to provide protection for victims of all internal armed conflicts. Its general provisions insure humane treatment to civilians and others who are hors de combat.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 11-3.
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) states that the “humane treatment of non-combatants may produce valuable information, gain active support and deny support for the enemy. Mistreatment serves only the interests of the enemy.” The manual specifies that non-combatants include civilians, medical personnel, chaplains, detained or captured persons and the wounded and sick. 
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, p. 5.
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides that the rules of IHL “are based on one general principle: treat all non-combatants … humanely”. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, pp. 4, 8 and 17.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993) states: “As a State party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions … your country is bound by these treaties … The States party to the Geneva Conventions pledge to … [r]espect the physical integrity, the honour [and] the dignity … of the individual.” 
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, pp. 14–16.
The Code of Conduct also states: “Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, which regulates non-international armed conflicts, provides for the humane treatment of all persons who are [not] taking part in the conflict or who are no longer doing so.” 
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, p. 15.
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states in Chapter 8, Subdivision D—War crimes that are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions:
268.26 War crime – inhumane treatment
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons are protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions or under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the person or persons are so protected; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995 as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.26, p. 321.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).
Croatia
Croatia’s Defence Act (2002), as amended to 2007, states:
Members of the Armed Forces shall, under each and every circumstance when in battle … adhere to the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the humane treatment of enemy soldiers … in accordance with the Constitution, international treaties and laws. 
Croatia, Defence Act, 2002, as amended to 2007, Article 92.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), as amended to 2008, which contains a section on violations of the rules or customs of war, states in its general provisions: “Any person to whom an offence or fault is attributed has the right to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human.” 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2008, Article 2.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants must respect and treat with humanity all persons protected by the applicable international conventions”. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Law on the Protection of Childhood and Adolescence (2003) states: “During the execution of sanctions the adolescent shall, at a minimum, have the right to the following: a) Right to … dignity and physical and mental integrity …”. 
Guatemala, Law on the Protection of Childhood and Adolescence, 2003, Article 260(a).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of common Article 3, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 75(1), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 4(1), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Paraguay
Paraguay’s Law on the Status of Military Personnel (1997) provides that respect for human dignity is one of the duties imposed on military personnel because of the constitutional responsibility of the armed forces. 
Paraguay, Law on the Status of Military Personnel, 1997, Article 15(j).
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states that “persons placed hors de combat for … any … reason must in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.2.1; see also Article 7(a).
South Africa
South Africa’s Constitution (1996), as amended to 2003, states:
10. Human dignity. – Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.
37. States of emergency.
(1) A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament and only when –
(a) the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; …
(5) No Act of Parliament that authorises a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of a declaration may permit or authorise –
(c) any derogation from a section mentioned in column 1 of the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, to the extent indicated opposite that section in column 3 of the Table. 
South Africa, Constitution, 1996, as amended to 2003, Sections 10 and 37(1)(a) and (5)(c).
In the “Table of Non-Derogable Rights”, the Constitution includes section 10, entitled “Human Dignity”, and states that the right is protected “[e]ntirely”. 
South Africa, Constitution, 1996, as amended to 2003, Section 37.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:
3. … [S]ubjecting a protected person to humiliating or degrading treatment. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 612(3).
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Military Career (2007) states:
The following essential rules define military conduct:
First. … [He or she] shall respect the dignity and inalienable rights of all persons … In no case shall the serviceman or servicewoman be subject to, nor shall they subject others to, measures that undermine their personal dignity. 
Spain, Law on the Military Career, 2007, Article 4(1).
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust protect defenceless or disadvantaged persons, in particular women and children, against … humiliating and degrading treatment”. 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 112.
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Rights and Duties of Members of the Armed Forces (2011) states:
Article 2. Scope of application
1. This law applies to all members of the Armed Forces who acquire the status of military personnel in accordance with Law 39/2007, of 19 November, on Military Career. Accordingly, it applies to official members of the armed forces, except for those persons in administrative roles whose status as military personnel is suspended and students undergoing military training.
2. This status applies to members of the reserves and aspirants when they are incorporated into the armed forces …
Article 6. Rules of conduct of military personnel
1. The essential rules governing the conduct of military personnel are the following:
Fifth
To act in accordance with respect for the person, the common good, and international law applicable during armed conflict. The dignity and inviolable rights of the person are values which one has the obligation to respect and the right to demand. In no event shall military personnel be subject to, or subject others to, measures which result in the violation of personal dignity or undue restriction of a person’s rights. 
Spain, Law on the Rights and Duties of Members of the Armed Forces, 2011, Articles 2 and 6(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Armed Forces Act (2006) provides: “A person subject to service law commits an offence if … he ill-treats a person who is on board a ship or aircraft when it is taken as prize.” 
United Kingdom, Armed Forces Act (2006), Section 38.
United States of America
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
3. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health.
29. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2, 26.3.3 and 26.3.29.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the State of Emergency (2001), which includes situations of internal and international armed conflict, states:
In accordance with Articles 339 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Article 4(2) of the [1966] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 27(2) of the [1969] American Convention on Human Rights, the guarantee to the [following] rights must not be restricted:
7. The [right to] physical, psychological and moral integrity. 
Venezuela, Law on the State of Emergency, 2001, Article 7(7).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states:
The following shall be punished with military arrest or political prison for one to four years:
1. Venezuelan or foreign nationals who, during a war between Venezuela and another nation, violate the … principles observed by civilized peoples during war, such as respect for … non-combatants … , without prejudice to military laws which shall be specially applicable to these matters. 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 155(1).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents (2007) states: “The dignity inherent in the human person … [and] personal integrity … must be respected.” 
Venezuela, Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, 2007, Article 538.
The Law also states: “Every boy, girl and adolescent has the right to personal integrity. This right includes physical, psychological and moral integrity.” 
Venezuela, Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, 2007, Article 32.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2009), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states: “In penal proceedings, all persons should be treated with due respect for the inherent dignity of the human being, with the protection of the rights derived therefrom.” 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 10.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2012), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states: “In penal proceedings, all persons should be treated with due respect for the inherent dignity of the human being, with the protection of the rights derived therefrom”. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 10.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2007, in the Ramić case, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that “it is customary law that … persons hors de combat must be treated humanely, regardless of whether the conflict is international or non-international”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ramić case, Judgment, 21 November 2007, p. 4.
Chile
In its judgment in the Videla case in 1994, Chile’s Appeal Court of Santiago held that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions obliged parties to non-international armed conflicts “to extend humanitarian treatment to persons taking no active part in the hostilities or who have placed themselves hors de combat for various reasons”. 
Chile, Appeal Court of Santiago (Third Criminal Chamber), Videla case, Judgment, 26 September 1994.
Chile
In its judgment in the Contreras Sepúlveda case in 2004, Chile’s Supreme Court stated:
[W]ithout any doubt, the 1949 Geneva Conventions are in force … and oblige State parties in case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring within their territory, which is exactly the situation in Chile during the period of 12 September 1973 and 11 March 1975, to treat humanely … opponents who have laid down their arms, … prohibiting in particular at any time and any place a) violence to life and person, and b) outrages upon personal dignity.  
Chile, Supreme Court, Second Chamber, Contreras Sepúlveda case, Judgment, 17 November 2004, § 34.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated: “In accordance with the principle of humane treatment, … persons hors de combat shall be treated humanely.” 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment, 25 April 2007, p. 100.
(footnote in original omitted)
Peru
In 2006, in the Lucanmarca case, the Second Provisional Criminal Chamber of Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice stated:
International human rights law, international humanitarian law and Peru’s Political Constitution recognize the right to … health, physical integrity, personal liberty and security.
In international humanitarian law, Article 3 common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions prohibits in non-international armed conflicts attempts on the life and physical integrity of civilians, in particular … cruel treatment and attempts on personal dignity. 
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, Second Provisional Criminal Chamber, Lucanmarca case, Judgment, 13 October 2006, p. 209.
Russian Federation
In 1995, in its judgment in the Situation in Chechnya case, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court recognized the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the conflict in Chechnya. While noting that amendments to domestic legislation to ensure its application had not been adopted, the Court stated: “Nevertheless, provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] regarding the humane treatment of all persons who did not directly take part in hostilities or who ceased to take part in hostilities … must be respected by both parties to the armed conflict.” 
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Situation in Chechnya case, Judgment, 31 July 1995, § 5.
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.
Spain
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on acts against the physical integrity or health of protected persons. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 13.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated:
[O]ne of the fundamental aims of humanitarian … law is to protect the rights … of persons not participating in armed hostilities (Article 3 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the [1977] Additional Protocol II) … In case of national armed conflict, Article 3 establishes as a minimum the obligation to treat non-combatants “humanely” … The standards of Article 3 are considered to be a part of customary law and constitute the minimum – in terms of obligations – that belligerents must always respect. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, p. 8.
Burundi
In 2005, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Burundi stated that, according to its Armed Forces Regulations No. 11, members of the armed forces have a duty to “[a]ct in accordance with the principles of public international law, including by treating … defenceless persons with humanity”. 
Burundi, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 13 March 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/BDI/I, submitted 7 July 2005, § 62.
Colombia
The Report on the Practice of Colombia refers to a draft working paper in which the Colombian Government stated: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 4.1, referring to Presidential Council, Proposal of the Government to the Coordinator Guerrillerra Simón Bolívar to humanize war, Draft Internal Working Paper, Part entitled “El Derecho Internacional Humanitario”, § 1.
Iraq
On the basis of the reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that, during the Iran–Iraq War, members of the opposing forces who were hors de combat were well treated. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Islamic Republic of Iran
During the Iran–Iraq War, the Iranian authorities emphasized that Iraqi combatants who were hors de combat were well treated on the basis of Islamic law. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the protection of persons who are hors de combat is a basic tenet of the Israel Defense Forces. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Jordan
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I embodies customary law. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 5.
Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated:
Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include Article 4 providing guarantees to persons taking no active part in hostilities … due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, 11 April 2011, § 75.
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private security and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
International humanitarian law is aimed not only at states. It also contains numerous provisions for individuals and even civilians to observe. Perhaps the most well known example is Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, according to which persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed “hors de combat” by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated human[e]ly, without violence to life and person, in particular mutilation, torture and cruel treatment. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.2, p. 46.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2009, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Swiss foreign policy is very strongly committed to issues of human security and international humanitarian law … This consists of, in the first place, defending the individual rights of persons in times of peace and in times of war, to protect them from arbitrariness and cruel treatment, and – with the support of other States and private actors – negotiating and respecting rules imposing humane behaviour regardless of the situation. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, Summary, p. 5677.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, which stated: “Persons who are not or no longer taking part in the hostilities must be treated humanely without any discrimination. This is especially important in the case of detainees.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, Press Release, 15 November 2012.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2010, in its closing submissions to the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him by UK armed forces in Iraq in 2003, the UK Ministry of Defence stated regarding common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: “On its face this protection is restricted to armed conflicts not of an international character. However, it is understood to apply in all forms of armed conflict as part of customary international law to set out the irreducible minimum standard.” 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, § 10.2, p. 10.
The Ministry of Defence further stated:
12. The treaties setting out rules of IHL are supplemented by rules of customary international law (CIL), i.e. rules which are recognized as binding by States, even though they do not appear in treaty texts. … [I]n relation to the rules described below the Government accepts that they reflect CIL. It is suggested that the rules which are of most relevance to this inquiry are:
12.3. … Civilians and persons hors de combat must be treated humanely. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, §§ 12 and 12.3, p. 28.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed:
We support in particular the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 75 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] such as the principle that all persons who are in the power of a party to a conflict and who do not benefit from more favorable treatment under the Conventions be treated humanely in all circumstances and enjoy, at a minimum, the protections specified in the Conventions. 
United States, Remarks by Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 427.
United States of America
The Report on US Practice states: “It is the opinio juris of the US that persons detained in connection with an internal armed conflict are entitled to humane treatment as specified in Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II].” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.3.
UN Secretary-General
In 2000, in his report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, the UN Secretary-General stated that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II “have long been considered customary international law”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/2000/915, 4 October 2000, § 14.
No data.
No data.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
In its judgment in the Nicaragua case (Merits) in 1986, the ICJ held that the rules contained in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions reflected what the Court in 1949 in the Corfu Channel case (Merits) had called “elementary considerations of humanity”. 
ICJ, Nicaragua case (Merits), Judgment, 27 June 1986, § 218.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
In a separate opinion to the judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) in 2005, Judge Simma observed that Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provided for fundamental guarantees of humane treatment to persons in the power of a Party to the conflict:
27. [This was] confirmed recently in an Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) established by the Council of Europe. This Opinion [adopted by the Venice Commission at its 57th Plenary Session, Venice, 12–13 December 2003, Opinion No. 245/2003, doc. No. CDL-AD (2003) 18, paras. 34 ff.] was prepared to answer the question whether the new challenges posed by international terrorism, and the claims made by the United States in the wake of September 11 [2001] to the effect that the United States could deny certain persons the protection of the Geneva Conventions because they were “enemy unlawful combatants”, rendered necessary a further development of international humanitarian law. According to the Venice Commission, Article 75 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, as well as common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions … “are based on the assumption that nationals of States which are not Parties to the conflict or nationals of co-belligerent States do not need the full protection of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] since they are normally even better protected by the rules on diplomatic protection. Should however, diplomatic protection not be (properly) exercised on behalf of such third party nationals, International Humanitarian Law provides for protection under Article 75 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and common Article 3 so that such persons do not remain without certain minimum rights.” Thus, also according to the Venice Commission, there is “in respect of these matters … no legal void in international law”.
28. Further, it can safely be concluded that the fundamental guarantees enshrined in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I are also embodied in customary international law. 
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, 19 December 2005, §§ 27–28.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgment in the Aleksovski case in 1999, the ICTY held:
A reading of paragraph (1) of common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] reveals that its purpose is to uphold and protect the inherent human dignity of the individual. It prescribes humane treatment without discrimination based on “race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria”. Instead of defining the humane treatment which is guaranteed, the States parties chose to proscribe particularly odious forms of mistreatment that are without question incompatible with humane treatment … Hence, while there are four sub-paragraphs which specify the absolutely prohibited forms of inhuman treatment from which there can be no derogation, the general guarantee of humane treatment is not elaborated, except for the guiding principle underlying the Convention, that its object is the humanitarian one of protecting the individual qua human being and, therefore, it must safeguard the entitlements which flow therefrom. 
ICTY, Aleksovski case, Judgment, 25 June 1999, § 49.
Human Rights Committee
In 2006, in its concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) establishing the applicability of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which reflects fundamental rights guaranteed by the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] in any armed conflict. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, 18 December 2006, § 5.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In a case concerning Peru in 1996, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reinforced the principle that the right to humane treatment must be respected at all times, even during emergency or conflict situations, by State agents responsible for law enforcement. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.559 (Peru), Report, 1 March 1996, Section V(2).
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces the rules contained in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and that: “Humane treatment shall be given in all circumstances.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 31 and 187.
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: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in the hostilities … must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1991 in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC reminded the parties that “combatants placed hors de combat must be treated humanely”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1658, Gulf War: ICRC reminds States of their obligations, 17 January 1991, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 26; see also Press Release No. 1659, Middle East Conflict: ICRC appeals to belligerents, 1 February 1991, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 27.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia: “Respect and protect all those not or no longer participating in hostilities.” 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
National Society (Mexico)
In a declaration issued in 1994 in the context of the conflict between the Mexican Government and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), the Mexican Red Cross reminded the parties of their obligation to treat with humanity non-combatants and persons hors de combat. It recalled the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Mexican Red Cross, Declaración en torno a los acontecimientos que se han presentado en el estado de Chiapas a partir del 1o. de Enero de 1994, 3 January 1994.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “Persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances, regardless of the party to which they belong.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § I, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 503.
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: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in confrontations … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994 § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier (eds.), How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 2001, the ICRC reminded the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan of “the requirement that persons not taking part in hostilities must be treated with humanity in all circumstances … Threats to their lives, their physical integrity and their dignity are prohibited.” 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/47, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to conflict to respect international humanitarian law, 24 October 2001.
No data.