Practice Relating to Rule 146. Reprisals against Protected Persons

Geneva POW Convention
Article 2, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “Measures of reprisal against [prisoners of war] are forbidden.” 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 2, third para.
Geneva Convention III
Article 13, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides: “Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.” 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 13, third para.
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 7.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin which deals under Section 7.1 with the protection of “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 … detention”, states: “The following acts against any of the persons mentioned in section 7.1 are prohibited at any time and in any place: … reprisals.” 
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 7.2.
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 8 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin, dealing with “Treatment of detained persons”, states: “Without prejudice to their legal status, they shall be treated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, as may be applicable to them mutatis mutandis.” 
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 8.
ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility
Article 50(1) of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, dealing with “Obligations not affected by countermeasures”, states: “Countermeasures shall not affect: … (c) obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals.” 
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, 23 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2001, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, Article 50(1).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969), in a provision dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war, refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and provides: “Measures of reprisal with respect to them remain prohibited.” 
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, § 2.013(1).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), in an annex containing a list of “Fundamental rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflict”, provides: “Captured combatants … will be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals.” 
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, Annex 10, § 4.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “Protected from the moment of their surrender or capture, PW [prisoners of war] and PW camps must not be made the objects of … reprisals.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 414.
The Guide further refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Protected persons … should not be the subject of reprisals.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1212.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994), in a provision dealing with prisoners of war, provides: “Protected from the moment of their surrender or capture, prisoners of war must not be made the object of attack or reprisals.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 519.
In a chapter entitled “Prisoners of war and detained persons”, the manual states: “The fundamental rules for the treatment of PW [prisoners of war] are: … reprisals against them are prohibited.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1002(c).
The manual also states: “Reprisals may be justified but only against military objectives.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1309.
In another provision, the manual states: “Protected persons … should not be the subject of reprisals.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1311.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Protected from the moment of their surrender or capture, PW [prisoners of war] must not be made the object of attack or reprisals.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 5.20; see also §§ 10.2 and 13.19.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983), citing several examples of jurisprudence, states:
The persons protected by the Geneva Conventions (… prisoners of war …) … may not be made the object of reprisals. Therefore, [reprisals] may be directed only against combatants, non-protected property and a restricted group of non-protected civilians. 
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. 36.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “The following prohibitions must be respected: … to launch reprisals against protected persons and property.” It adds that reprisals “may only be used if: … they are carried out only against combatants and military objectives.” 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, pp. 12 and 13.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994), in a provision entitled “Laws and customs of war” dealing with the duties of and prohibitions for combatants, states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat: … to engage in reprisals or collective punishments.” 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 32.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), in the section dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs), provides: “Reprisals against PWs are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-3, § 25; see also p. 15-2, § 15(c).
In the section dealing with enforcement measures, the manual further states: “Reprisals are permitted against combatants and against objects constituting military objectives.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-2, § 16.
In the same section, it states: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited: … c. prisoners of war (PWs)”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-3, § 15.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides: “No reprisals will be taken against PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 6, § 12.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs): “Reprisals against PWs are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1019.
In its chapter entitled “Preventative and enforcement measures and the role of protecting powers”, the manual states:
4. Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited:
c. prisoners of war (PWs);
5. Reprisals are permitted against combatants and against objects constituting military objectives. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1507.4.c and 5.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
No reprisals will be taken against PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees … CF [Canadian Forces] personnel will treat detained persons properly regardless of how CF personnel may have been treated while in the hands of opposing forces. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 6, § 12.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “Captured combatants … must be protected against … reprisals.” 
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, § 4; see also Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section I.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war”. 
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. 93.
Colombia
Colombia’s Circular on Fundamental Rules of IHL (1992) provides: “Captured combatants … shall be protected against … reprisals.” 
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, § 4.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986), in a provision entitled “International conventions, laws and customs of war”, states: “According to the conventions adhered to by the Congo … it is prohibited [to soldiers in combat]: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32(2).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
Customary law regarded measures of reprisal taken by a belligerent party as one of the lawful means intended to enforce the application of the law.
However, since these measures often lead to an escalation of the violence and generally strike persons who are not the true culprits, the law of reprisals of belligerent parties has progressively been restricted. Thus, reprisal measures against protected persons and objects are the subject of an express prohibition in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 38.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides: “Measures of reprisal against POWs [prisoners of war] are prohibited.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 62.
Croatia
Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993) states that captured combatants and civilians must be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals. 
Croatia, Instructions “Basic Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1993, Instruction No. 4.
Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) states that reprisals are prohibited against prisoners of war. It further provides for the prohibition of taking reprisals against “specifically protected persons and objects”. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 19.
Cuba
Cuba’s Regulation of the Internal Order of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (2002) states: “During combat operations, servicemen [will] … avoid reprisals against … [captured enemies], in accordance with the norms and principles of International Humanitarian Law.” 
Cuba, Reglamento de Orden Interior de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, 2002, Ministerio de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, aprobado por Orden No. 349 del Ministro de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, Havana, 30 September 2002, Article 8.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980), under the heading “Treat all captives and detainees humanely”, states: “You must never carry out reprisals or acts of vengeance against any person, enemy or civilian, you have taken prisoner or detained during the fighting.” 
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, p. 7.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against: 1. Prisoners of war …”. It also provides: “Prisoners of war may not be subjected to collective punishment nor may reprisal action be taken against them.” 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, §§ 6.2.3.2 and 11.8.1.
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, in a provision entitled “Respect for the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts” dealing with the duties of and prohibitions for combatants, states: “By virtue of the international conventions ratified or approved: … it is prohibited [to soldiers in combat]: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments.” 
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 (2).
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides: “Captured combatants … must be protected against violence and reprisals.” 
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.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001), in the chapter dealing with means and methods of warfare, states: “The law of armed conflict prohibits … the methods of warfare which consist in the recourse: … to reprisals against non-military objectives”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 85.
The manual refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 108.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are forbidden.” 
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, p. 7.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, provides: “It is expressly prohibited by agreement to make reprisals against: … prisoners of war (Art. 13 para 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III])”. 
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 KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 479.
In the part dealing with the protection of prisoners of war, and under a provision entitled “Fundamental rules for the treatment of prisoners of war”, the manual refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and provides: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.” 
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 KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 704.
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) provides: “Reprisals are expressly prohibited against … prisoners of war”. 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 320.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.” 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 7.
Greece
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides: “In the context of armed conflict, reprisals are prohibited … [a]gainst prisoners of war.” 
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 4, § 7(a).
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that reprisals are prohibited against prisoners of war. It further provides for the prohibition of taking reprisals against “specifically protected persons and objects”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 35.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990) provides that a “reprisal is absolutely prohibited against protected persons and objects”. 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 15(c).
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states: “Reprisals against PWs [prisoners of war] are prohibited. That is, PWs may not be punished for the acts of other people as a means of bringing pressure on the enemy to desist from such acts.” 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 8.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991), providing for the prohibition of reprisals against prisoners of war, states: “The observance of international rules which expressly provide for the obligation to abide by them in any circumstances cannot be suspended by way of reprisals, such as, for instance, the rules regarding prisoners of war.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 25.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “It is forbidden: … (e) to carry out reprisals against protected persons or property”. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 2.
In the chapter dealing with reprisals, the manual further provides that reprisals “are carried out only against combatants and military objectives … The Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] prohibit reprisals against prisoners of war.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 4.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) instructs soldiers not to take hostages and to refrain from all acts of revenge. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 5-T, §§ 8 and 9.
In the attached list of “Fundamental rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts”, the manual states: “Captured combatants … will be protected against any act of violence and reprisals.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 91, Rule 4.
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974), in a provision entitled “Laws and customs of war” dealing with the duties of and prohibitions for combatants, states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(2).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands, in the chapter dealing with the protection of prisoners of war, states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are forbidden.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. VII-3.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states: “Protected persons under the laws of war are: … prisoners of war … Reprisals against them must not be taken.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-38.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited. Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and their honour. The paramount requirement here is a ban on killing, wounding or endangering prisoners of war. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0711.
In its chapter on methods and means of warfare, the manual states:
In the history of warfare, reprisals carried out have often exceeded the set limits. This has led to the current prohibition, in the humanitarian law of war and specifically in AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I], of reprisals against several groups of people and objects.
The following are now forbidden as reprisals:
- attacks on prisoners of war. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0424.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992), in the chapter dealing with prisoners of war and referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 918(1).
In the footnote relative to this provision, the manual states:
Since prisoners of war are in the Power of the Detaining Power, they are among the easiest victims for reprisal action and are, of themselves, unable to affect the conduct of their national government. The [1907 Hague Regulations] made no reference to this matter and during World War I prisoners were often made the object of reprisals. The ban on such action first appeared in the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, Art. 2. In accordance with the provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], reprisals are forbidden against all persons who are hors de combat, as well as against protected objects, the destruction of which would primarily affect such persons. During World War II the Germans fettered British prisoners of war claiming it as a reprisal for a raid on Sark in 1942, when five German captives had their hands tied so that they could be linked to their captors while being escorted to the boats of the raiding party. During the Dieppe raid, the Germans captured a Canadian order authorising the tying of prisoners’ hands, the Germans protested about the order, which was subsequently described as unauthorised and countermanded. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 918(1), footnote 51.
In the chapter dealing with reprisals and referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I and Article 44 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the manual further states: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited … prisoners of war”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1606(2)(c).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996), in the part dealing with international armed conflict, states: “Prisoners of war … must be protected against … measures of reprisal.” 
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, Article 14(18).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), in a part dealing with the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states: “Reprisals directed against prisoner[s] of war are prohibited.” 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 16, § 9.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides: “It is prohibited to take measures of reprisal against prisoners of war as a retaliation for violation of the Laws of War by the enemy.” 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 37.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that reprisals against “prisoners of war” are prohibited. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 25.c.(2).(b); see also §§ 36.e and 92.d.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that reprisals against “prisoners of war” are prohibited. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 29(c)(2)(b), p. 234; see also § 37(e), p. 254.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Soldiers who have surrendered or who are in the control of the enemy cannot be made the object of reprisal and must be protected.” It further provides: “Reprisals against the persons and property of prisoners of war … are prohibited.”  
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, §§ 30 and 34(e).
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “Soldiers who have surrendered or who are in the control of the enemy cannot be made the object of reprisal”. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 52.
The manual also prohibits reprisals against the persons or property of prisoners of war. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 56(e).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
Fundamental Norms and Values (rules)
The fundamental norms/val[u]es which underlie the LOAC [law of armed conflict] are:
- Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights and convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence and retaliation. 
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, p. 16.
The manual also states:
Reprisals
- The LOAC prohibits reprisals against the following:
- POW [prisoners of war][.] 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 3, p. 194.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, lists prisoners of war among the persons against whom the taking of reprisals is prohibited. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 3.3.c.(5)(b).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, lists prisoners of war among the persons against whom the taking of reprisals is prohibited. 
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, § 3.3.c.(5); see also § 11.8.c.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991), while noting that the Swedish IHL Committee strongly discourages even this possibility in view of its manifestly inhuman effect, states:
Under Additional Protocol I, reprisals are permitted only against military personnel. A state acceding to Additional Protocol I thereby accepts a limitation of its freedom to employ reprisals. The [Swedish International Humanitarian Law] Committee believes that this involves a considerable humanitarian advance. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.5, p. 89.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987), in the chapter dealing with the “Fundamental protection of prisoners of war”, contains a provision entitled “Prohibition of reprisals” which refers to Article 13, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Measures of reprisal are prohibited with regard to prisoners of war.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 98.
In the provision dealing with reprisals, referring, inter alia, to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, the manual further states: “By virtue of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, [reprisals] are prohibited with regard to … prisoners of war”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 197(2).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states: “Prisoners must be humanely treated at any time and in any place. Any act of torture, physical or mental ill-treatment, degrading treatment or discrimination as well as measures of reprisal are prohibited.” 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 187.
(emphasis in original)
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states: “The following prohibitions must be respected: … to launch reprisals against protected persons and property”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12.
The manual adds that reprisals “may only be used if: … they are carried out only against combatants and military objectives”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 13.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.2.18.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states:
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. This prohibition is of an absolute character, so that reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited even if intended to be adopted as a measure of retaliation against the violation of provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] by the other party. Reprisals against such violations of the Convention are permissible, but they must not be directed against prisoners of war or any other persons protected by the 1949 Conventions. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 133(b) and footnotes 4 and 5.
In the part dealing with reprisals, the manual refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war … are … prohibited.” In a footnote relating to this provision, the manual further notes: “Reprisals are unlawful against all persons except enemy combatants and those few classes of civilians who are not protected persons.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 644 and footnote 2.
In a footnote relating to another provision, the manual states: “Reprisals against … prisoners of war … constitute war crimes.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 647, footnote 1.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “The [1949] Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] prohibit reprisals against prisoners of war.” 
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 4, p. 17, § 16.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Reprisals can never lawfully be taken against prisoners of war.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.29; see also § 16.18.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states:
Reprisals against the persons or property of prisoners of war, including the wounded and sick, … are forbidden … However, reprisals may still be visited on enemy troops who have not yet fallen into the hands of the forces making the reprisals. 
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, § 497(c).
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, provides:
Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited … No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 10-7(b)(1).
The Pamphlet further states:
Reprisals are forbidden, under all circumstances, against the persons or objects referenced above in accordance with the 1949 Geneva Conventions. At least some, and possibly all, of these prohibitions are regarded as customary law and are binding regardless of whether the adversary is a party to the Geneva Conventions. For definitions as to persons or objects protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, applicable articles of those documents must be consulted. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 10-7(b)(2).
In the chapter dealing with the 1949 Geneva Convention III, the Pamphlet reiterates: “Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 13-2.
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980), under the heading “Persons and Things Not Subject to Reprisals”, states:
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, reprisals may not be directed against … prisoners of war. (The reprisals against British prisoners of war that the United States threatened during the Revolution would thus be illegal today, though at the time, reprisals against PWs [prisoners of war] were lawful.) 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 8-4(c).
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984), under the heading “Treat all captives and detainees humanely”, tells soldiers: “You must never engage in reprisals or acts of revenge against any persons, enemy or civilian, whom you capture or detain in combat.” 
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. 15.
United States of America
The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) provides:
The following measures are expressly prohibited by the law of war and are not excusable on the basis of military necessity:
m. Reprisals against persons or property protected by the Geneva Conventions, to include … prisoners of war, detained personnel … 
United States, Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, Center for Law and Military Operations and International Law Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, 1993, p. Q-182.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against: 1. Prisoners of war”. It also provides: “Prisoners of war may not be subjected to collective punishment nor may reprisal action be taken against them.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), §§ 6.2.3.2 and 11.7.1.
United States of America
The Annotated Supplement to the US Naval Handbook (1997), with regard to the prohibition of taking reprisals against prisoners of war, states:
In light of the wide acceptance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions by the nations of the world today, this prohibition is part of customary law … The taking of prisoners by way of reprisal for acts previously committed (so-called “reprisal prisoners”) is likewise forbidden. 
United States, Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, prepared by the Oceans Law and Policy Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, November 1997, § 6.2.3.2, footnote 45.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against: 1. Prisoners of war”. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 6.2.4.2; see also § 11.3.1.1.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states: “The laws of war prohibit reprisals against the following persons and objects: … prisoners of war”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 31(1).
Colombia
Under Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), reprisals against protected persons and objects taken “in the event of and during armed conflict” are punishable offences. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 158.
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).
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Prisoners of war … are protected persons … Reprisals against protected persons are prohibited.” 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides: “Respect for rules adopted in order to comply with international conventions which expressly exclude reprisals cannot be suspended.” 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended, 1992, Article 8.
Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations (2004) states: “No person shall expose any adverse distinction on prisoners of war … in revenge for armed attack.” 
Japan, Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations, 2004, Article 2(3).
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
A commander who causes serious harm to lawful enemy belligerents who have fallen into his power … by not according them the treatment prescribed by law or by international agreements or who resorts to reprisals, shall be punished, unless the act constitutes a more serious offence, by military confinement for not less than three years. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 382.
Argentina
In the Priebke case in 1995, Argentina’s Public Prosecutor of First Instance, dealing with Italy’s request to extradite the accused, held that the alleged killing in reprisal of 330 civilians and prisoners of war committed by German soldiers in the Ardeatine Caves in Italy during the Second World War was “an act which must be qualified as a war crime”. 
Argentina, Hearing of the Public Prosecutor of the First Instance, Priebke case, 1995, Section V.2.
Netherlands
In its judgment in the Rauter case in 1949, the Special Court of Cassation of the Netherlands, dealing with the limits to reprisals, stated: “Among the limits referred to, the prohibition should especially be mentioned of taking reprisals against prisoners of war, as this was expressly prohibited by Art. 2 of the 1929 [Geneva POW] Convention.” 
Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Rauter case, Judgment, 12 January 1949.
United States of America
In its judgment in the Dostler case in 1945, in which a German commander had been accused of having ordered, in March 1944, the shooting of 15 American prisoners of war in violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations, the US Military Commission at Rome referred to Article 2, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention and held that from this provision followed that under the law as codified by this Convention there can be no legitimate reprisals against prisoners of war. No soldier, and still less a Commanding General, could be heard to say that he considered the summary shooting of prisoners of war legitimate even as a reprisal. Referring to the decision of the German Reichsgericht in the Dover Castle case, the US Military Commission of Rome stated that through the express provision of Article 2, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention the decision of the German Reichsgericht in the said case had lost even such little persuasive authority as it may have had at the time it was rendered. 
United States, Military Commission at Rome, Dostler case, Judgment, 8–12 October 1945.
Canada
In 1986, in a memorandum on Canada’s attitude to possible reservations with regard to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the Canadian Ministry of Defence noted: “The Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibit reprisals against certain categories of persons such as … prisoners of war”. 
Canada, Ministry of Defence, Memorandum on Ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Reprisals Reservation, Operational Considerations, Doc. 3440-13-2 (D Law/I), 14 March 1986, § 2.
Colombia
At the CDDH, following the adoption of Article 20 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Colombia stated that it “was opposed to any kind of reprisals”. 
Colombia, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, § 34.
Egypt
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated: “Reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war … The prohibition applies in respect of all weapons. In consequence, they (i.e. protected persons and objects) can never become targets of any attack, including nuclear attacks.” 
Egypt, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, § 46.
Egypt
In its written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated:
Reprisals are prohibited against protected persons and objects according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional Protocols. This prohibition of reprisal is absolute and applies to the use of all weapons. In consequence, the protected persons and objects can never become targets of any attack, including nuclear attacks. The provisions of the Conventions and the Protocols carrying this prohibition of reprisals against protected persons and objects are considered declaratory of customary law. 
Egypt, Written comments submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, September 1995, § 43.
France
At the CDDH, France made a proposal for a draft article on reprisals within the 1977 Additional Protocol I – which it later withdrew – which read, inter alia, as follows: “3… . The measures may not involve any actions prohibited by the Geneva Conventions of 1949.” 
France, Draft Article 74 bis Additional Protocol I submitted to the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. III, CDDH/I/ 221/Rev.1, 22 April 1976, p. 324.
Germany, Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, the Federal Republic of Germany, with respect to the French proposal on reprisals according to which “the measures may not involve any actions prohibited by the Geneva Conventions of 1949”, stated that this provision “was the most important in the whole of the proposal since it really did protect prisoners of war”. 
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. IX, CDDH/I/SR.48, 30 April 1976, p. 84, § 6.
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 reprisals “must not be directed, in any way, against … prisoners of war …, but [have] to be confined to purely military targets”. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 2.9, referring to the reply from the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997.
Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) do not condone nor conduct reprisals against persons or objects protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.9.
Jordan
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, “The prohibition of belligerent reprisals against protected persons and property is viewed as customary law … In practice, Jordan never resorted to attacks by way of reprisal.” 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 2.9.
Lebanon
In 1984, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Lebanon stated with respect to Israeli practices that it deplored the fact that the “occupying authorities often resort to inhuman reprisals … against the detainees, practices which are in violation of articles 27 and 32 of the fourth Geneva Convention and article 46 of [the 1907 Hague Regulations]”. 
Lebanon, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2552, 29 August 1984, § 22.
Philippines
The Report on the Practice of the Philippines states: “Reprisals are generally prohibited.” 
Report on the Practice of the Philippines, 1997, Chapter 2.9.
Poland
At the CDDH, Poland made a proposal for a draft article on reprisals within the 1977 Additional Protocol I – which it later withdrew – which read, inter alia, as follows: “Insert a new article after [draft] Article 70 worded as follows: ‘Measures of reprisal against persons and objects protected by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and by the present Protocol are prohibited’.” 
Poland, Proposal on a new Article 70 bis draft Additional Protocol I submitted to the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. III, CDDH/III/103, 1 October 1974, p. 313.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states: “International humanitarian law does not include any general prohibition of reprisals. There are however numerous provisions that prohibit specific types of reprisal, in particular reprisals against Protected persons such as Prisoners of war.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 37.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United Kingdom stated:
To be lawful, a belligerent reprisal must meet two conditions. First, it must not be directed against persons or objects against which the taking of reprisals is specifically prohibited … The Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibit the taking of reprisals against persons or objects protected by the Conventions. 
United Kingdom, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 16 June 1995, pp. 58–59.
United States of America
In April 1965, when a North Vietnamese prisoner was sentenced to death by a South Vietnamese court, the communist rebel group announced that if the sentence was carried out, it would kill an American aid officer in their hands. Neither of the executions was carried out. Three months later, a North Vietnamese prisoner was executed apparently after having been tried, convicted and sentenced by a South Vietnamese special military tribunal. A few days later, it was announced that an American sergeant held as a prisoner of war had been executed in reprisal. In September 1965, three North Vietnamese prisoners were executed, again apparently after having been tried, convicted and sentenced. The execution of two American prisoners of war in reprisal was announced a few days later. 
Frits Kalshoven, Belligerent Reprisals, A. W. Sijthof, Leyden, 1971, pp. 295–305.
The United States refused to accept that the executions were justified as reprisals and the acts were denounced as “two more acts of brutal murder.” The ICRC was asked to take all possible action with respect to these violations. 
United States, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. LIII, No. 1373, 18 October 1965, p. 635.
North Vietnam also threatened to treat captured US pilots as war criminals subject to trial. The United States charged that the threat was to justify reprisals for executions by the South Vietnamese of North Vietnamese prisoners as terrorists. 
N.Y. Times Index, 1965, p. 1098.
United States of America
An instruction card issued to all US troops engaged in Viet Nam directed soldiers always to treat prisoners humanely, adding: “All persons in your hands, whether suspects, … or combat captives, must be protected against violence, insults, curiosity, and reprisals of any kind.” 
United States, The enemy in your hands, Reproduction of 3x5 instruction card issued to all troops, reprinted in George. S. Prugh, Law at War: Vietnam 1964–1973, Department of the Army, Vietnam Studies, 1975, Appendix H. III.
United States of America
At the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965, the US delegate declared that his government had been “shocked and deeply saddened by the brutal murder of prisoners of war as acts of reprisals” in the Vietnam War and that it was “profoundly concerned that other prisoners may be executed in violation of international law”. 
United States, Department of State Bulletin, Vol. LIII, No. 1375, 1 November 1965, p. 725.
United States of America
According the Report on US Practice: “The United States does not regard the summary execution of persons in custody as a lawful means of reprisals.” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 2.9.
UN Security Council
In 1980, in a statement by its President regarding the capture and killing of two UNIFIL soldiers by the de facto forces in southern Lebanon after the UN had been warned that reprisals would be taken if there were any victims following UNIFIL actions, the UN Security Council stated that “[t]he members of the Security Council are shocked and outraged at the report that the Council has received on … the cold-blooded murder of peace-keeping soldiers” and denounced the “unprecedented, barbaric act”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PV.2217, 18 April 1980, § 15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1991 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly urged all parties to the conflict “to protect all prisoners of war from acts of reprisals”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/136, 17 December 1991, § 6, adopted without a vote.
The General Assembly reiterated this appeal in 1992. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/141, 18 December 1992, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, to which the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, and thus Article 50(1)(c) stating that “[c]ountermeasures shall not affect … obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals”, were annexed. In the resolution, the General Assembly took note of the Draft Articles and commended them to the attention of governments “without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 56/83, 12 December 2001, § 3 and Annex, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties to the conflict “to treat all prisoners in their custody in accordance with the internationally recognized principles of humanitarian law and to protect them from all acts of reprisal and violence”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1989/67, 8 March 1989, § 11, adopted without a vote.
The Commission on Human Rights reiterated these appeals in 1990, 1991 and 1992. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1990/53, 6 March 1990, § 5, adopted without a vote; Res. 1991/78, 6 March 1991, § 6, adopted without a vote; Res. 1992/68, 4 March 1992, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN Secretary-General
In 1980, the UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that two UNIFIL soldiers had been captured and killed by the de facto forces in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL had been warned that if there were any victims following UNIFIL actions, reprisals would be taken. 
UN Secretary-General, Oral report before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2212, 13 April 1980, § 8.
A few days later, the UN Under Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs told the Security Council: “This murder of unarmed soldiers can only be described as a killing in cold blood, following on repeated threats by the de facto forces against the lives of members of UNIFIL.” 
UN Under Secretary-General, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2217, 18 April 1980, § 14.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 44 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are specifically prohibited: … (c) Prisoners of war”. 
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Final report, UN Doc. S/1994/674, 27 May 1994, § 65.
The Commission further stated:
In international armed conflicts to which the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I apply, lawful reprisals … must be directed exclusively against combatants or other military objectives subject to the limitations contained in the Geneva Conventions, Protocol I and customary international law of armed conflicts. In international armed conflicts where Additional Protocol I does not apply, reprisals may be directed against a much wider category of persons and objects, but subject to the limitations of customary international law of armed conflicts. 
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Final report, UN Doc. S/1994/674, 27 May 1994, § 66.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1969)
The 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969 adopted a resolution on the protection of prisoners of war in which it recognized that irrespective of the 1949 Geneva Convention III,
the international community has consistently demanded humane treatment for prisoners of war, including identification and accounting for all prisoners, provision of an adequate diet and medical care, authorization for prisoners to communicate with each other and with the exterior, the prompt repatriation of seriously sick or wounded prisoners, and protection at all times from physical and mental torture, abuse and reprisals. 
21st International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, 6–13 September 1969, Res. XI.
No data.
ICRC
The US protest against the execution of two American prisoners of war during the Vietnam War, which had been justified as a reprisal, was forwarded to the adversary by the ICRC. 
ICRC, Annual Report 1965, Geneva, 1966, pp. 8–17; Annual Report 1966, Geneva, 1967, pp. 16–28.
Kalshoven
Kalshoven notes: “None of the parties to the conflict in Vietnam have so much hinted at the argument that common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] would not prohibit reprisals.” 
Frits Kalshoven, Belligerent Reprisals, A. W. Sijthof, Leyden, 1971, p. 305.