United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Practice Relating to Rule 117. Accounting for Missing Persons
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Each party must search for persons reported missing by an adverse party and also facilitate such searches by the provision of relevant information.”
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Each party must search for persons reported missing by an adverse party and also facilitate such searches by the provision of relevant information.”
In 2003, in reply to an oral question in the House of Lords asking whether “the Government [would] give some priority to Kuwaiti prisoners of war and those missing in action since the previous Gulf War”, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated:
My Lords, I am delighted that that question has been asked, because it is one matter about which the Iraqi regime has been asked ever since the first Gulf War ended. I believe that there are 600 Kuwaiti prisoners whose whereabouts are completely unknown. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Iraqi regime has done absolutely nothing to assist the Kuwaiti authorities on that matter. We shall certainly be looking into that as matters develop.
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom stated that it was essential that the ICRC be given full access to those missing from Srebrenica and elsewhere and urged the Bosnian Serb party to comply with its obligations in this respect.
In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning civilian fatalities in Iraq, the UK Minister of State for Defence stated:
UK forces inform the International Committee of the Red Cross of all confirmed civilian fatalities of which they are aware have been caused, or allegedly caused, by UK forces. The ICRC then endeavours to inform the relatives as soon as practicable.
The UK Military Manual (1958) states: “Belligerents must facilitate enquiries by members of families dispersed as a result of war, with the object of renewing contact between them.”
At the CDDH in 1975, the representative of the United Kingdom stated that:
He did not consider, for instance, that it could be said that it was a fundamental right of families to know what had happened to their relatives, although it was a basic need. To go further than that would not be wise.