相关规则
Mexico
Practice Relating to Rule 158. Prosecution of War Crimes
Section A. General
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “The law of war contains provisions that expressly require States to punish persons under its authority who are responsible for unlawful acts.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 383.
Mexico’s Penal Code (1931), as amended to 2000, under the heading “Offences against the duties of humanity”, provides for the punishment of a number of offences committed against certain protected persons and objects. 
Mexico, Penal Code, 1931, as amended to 2000, Article 149.
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, under the headings “Crimes against the laws of nations” and “Crimes committed in the exercise of military duties or with relation to them” provides for the punishment of perpetrators of a number of offences related to war operations. 
Mexico, Code of Military Justice, 1933, as amended in 1996, Articles 208–215 and 324–337.
In 2007, during the general debate at the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the permanent representative of Mexico stated: “Neither the fight against terrorism nor sectarian antagonism justifies actions in violation of the IHL norms. Their violation must be investigated and punished in accordance with the applicable law and the victims must receive reparation.” 
Mexico, Statement by the delegation of Mexico during the debate on the topic “Reaffirmation and Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Preserving Life and Human Dignity in Armed Conflict” in the Commission B of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, 28 November 2007.
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
We should bear in mind that violations of the norms and basic principles of international humanitarian law constitute war crimes, and that it is the Member States who bear the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute those allegedly responsible for them. … Should States lack the capacity or willingness to prosecute alleged perpetrators, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to take up such crimes, as set forth in the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6151th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6151, 26 June 2009, p. 11.
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
When violent acts are committed against civilians and other persons protected in situations of armed conflict, justice must be done in order to put an end to the impunity of the alleged perpetrators of serious crimes or those ordering them to be committed in contravention of international law. The existence of the International Criminal Court and its complementary role vis-à-vis national jurisdictions should not only serve as an incentive to strengthen national justice systems, but also represent an effective mechanism for dealing with crimes when national judiciary structures have disappeared as a result of conflict. That is why it is important to achieve the universality of the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Mexico before the UN Security Council, 6216th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6216, 11 November 2009, p. 28.
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the Sudan, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
The Government of the Sudan is obliged to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes committed within its jurisdiction. That is a basic principle of international criminal law and a premise of the system created by the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. Events since the adoption of [UN Security Council] resolution 1593 (2005) show that, faced with the Government’s inaction, the International Criminal Court should exercise its jurisdiction. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6130th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6130, 4 December 2009, pp. 7–8.
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Mexico stated:
One of the main objectives in the 2010 programme of work of the recently created Inter-Ministerial Commission on International Humanitarian Law (CIDIH), is to review the definition of offences contained in the Federal Criminal Code, in light of the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I [of 1977], with a view to bringing them into line with international standards. 
Mexico, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 29 September 2010, § 2.
[footnote in original omitted]
In 2010, during a debate in the UN Security Council on children in armed conflict, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs stated:
Serious violations of fundamental principles and norms of international humanitarian law are war crimes, and Member States have the primary obligation to investigate and prosecute those responsible for such violations. …
In cases where States have neither the capacity nor the willingness to prosecute those presumed responsible for these crimes, the International Criminal Court has the power to recognize those crimes that are stipulated in the [1998] Rome Statute. 
Mexico, Statement by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs before the UN Security Council, 6341th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6341, 16 June 2010, p. 13.
The Secretary also stated:
Violations of international humanitarian law may be war crimes, and it is States themselves that have the primary obligation to prosecute their alleged perpetrators. If they cannot or are unwilling to do so, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to receive such cases. Its existence must not only be an incentive to strengthen national legal systems, but also an effective mechanism for addressing crimes when national judicial structures have been destroyed by conflict. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6427th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6427, 22 November 2010, p. 24.
With regard to dealing with Assad, I have already answered a number of questions on this. There have also been a number of questions about the remarks by Mr. Kerry on the Responsibility to Protect. This certainly also applies to the situation in Syria. There is no doubt about that. It is about protecting civilians against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. International crimes have certainly occurred in Syria. In particular, war crimes have occurred as the UN commission of Inquiry on Syria recently stated. The Dutch government is already engaged in mapping the human rights violations – as cynical as that may be, it is necessary – so that whenever it becomes possible, justice can occur. The responsibility to protect also foresees military intervention as a last resort on the basis of a UN Security Council mandate. In my view it is particularly important from a prevention perspective that during the conflict various measures are available. The Netherlands has already taken a number of bilateral measures, including sanctions, the closing of the embassy and supporting NGO’s documenting human rights violations for possible use in future judicial processes. 
Netherlands, Senate, Policy debate on the International Security strategy, 2014 – 2015 Session, 24 March 2015, published 8 April 2015, Kamerstuk 33694, No. 25, p. 7.