Practice Relating to Rule 121. Location of Internment and Detention Centres

Geneva Convention III
Article 22, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides: “Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness.” 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 22, first para.
Geneva Convention III
Article 23, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides: “No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone.” 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 23, first para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 83, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Detaining Power shall not set up places of internment in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 83, first para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 85, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
The Detaining Power is bound to take all necessary and possible measures to ensure that protected persons shall, from the outset of their internment, be accommodated in buildings or quarters which afford every possible safeguard as regards hygiene and health, and provide efficient protection against the rigours of the climate and the effects of the war. In no case shall permanent places of internment be situated in unhealthy areas or in districts, the climate of which is injurious to the internees. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 85, first para.
Additional Protocol II
Article 5(1)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that persons whose liberty has been restricted shall be “afforded safeguards as regards health and hygiene”. Article 5(2)(c) provides: “Places of internment or detention shall not be located close to the combat zone.” 
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 5(1)(b) and (2)(c). Article 5 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 92.
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 4(6) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides: “All persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict shall … be confined in a secure place.” 
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(6).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 8(b) of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides that detained persons “shall be held in secure and safe premises which provide all possible safeguards of hygiene and health, and shall not be detained in areas exposed to the dangers of the combat zone”. 
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(b).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides: “Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness.” 
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, § 2.019.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides: “Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness.” It adds: “No prisoners may be detained in areas where they may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone.” 
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, § 3.12.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “PW [prisoner of war] camps must not be located near military objectives with the intention of securing exemption from attack for those objectives.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1014.
The manual further states: “PWs [prisoners of war] may only be interned on land and centres of internment must be established in healthy areas, with prisoners having facilities guaranteeing hygiene and health.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1016.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
10.25 Prisoners must be evacuated to camps away from any danger areas as soon as possible …
10.26 PW [prisoner-of-war] camps must not be located near military objectives with the intention of securing exemption from attack for those objectives … The location of PW camps shall be communicated to the enemy through the protecting power and whenever possible such camps should be clearly marked with the letters ‘PW.’ or ‘PG.’ visible from the air …
10.28 PW may only be interned on land and centres of internment must be established in healthy areas, with prisoners having facilities guaranteeing hygiene and health. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 10.25–10.26 and 10.28; see also § 5.20.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) provides that prisoners of war shall be evacuated as soon as possible to camps located away from the combat zone so as to be out of danger. 
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. 45.
Belgium
Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Soldiers provides: “To the extent possible, POWs [prisoners of war] must be kept away from combat zones and from possible violence by the hostile population.” 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Dossier d’Instruction pour Soldat, à l’attention des officiers instructeurs, JS3, Etat-Major Général, Forces Armées belges, undated, p. 20.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The camps of prisoners of war must safeguard their hygiene and health.” 
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. 56.
The Regulations further states that prisoners of war “may be interned in camps designed for this purpose in premises removed from combat and not hazardous to their health”. 
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. 105; see also Part I bis, p. 85, and Part I, p. 15.
The Regulations also states: “It is prohibited … to expose … prisoners of war to the dangers of combat.” 
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. 11.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides that internment centres “shall be located at a sufficient distance between military objectives and civilian or sanitary objects”. It also states: “Prisoner of war camps shall not be improvised … and guarantee sufficient conditions of hygiene and healthfulness.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 117, § 431.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “Prisoners of war must be rapidly evacuated from the combat zone. Their security must be secured during the evacuation. They must be cared for and fed. Their sojourn in transit camps must be brief.” 
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. 123, § 403; see also p. 104, § 372, p. 148, § 432, pp. 165–166, § 463, p. 263, § 621 and p. 323.
The manual further states that commanders must ensure that prisoner-of-war camps “must be located at a sufficient distance from military objectives” and in the “rear”, i.e. in “zones away from where the combat is taking place”. 
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. 219, § 531.
The manual also provides:
Interment camps [of prisoners of war] must fulfil the following requirements:
- [be located at] sufficient distance between military objectives and medical or civilian objects.
Preferably they must be situated on firm ground and must meet all hygiene and health standards. 
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. 263, § 621.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 33: Treatment of prisoners of war
Prisoners must be evacuated, as soon as possible after their interrogation, to collection points situated in an area far enough from the combat zone, thus avoiding exposing them unnecessarily to danger.
The evacuation of prisoners must be effected in the same conditions of safety as those for the changes of station of friendly troops. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 33.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “POWs [prisoners of war] may only be interned on land. Centres of internment must be established in healthy areas, with POWs having facilities guaranteeing hygiene and healthfulness.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-3, § 32.
Concerning the treatment of internees, the manual stresses: “Internment camps must not be located in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-6, § 52.
With respect to non-international armed conflicts, the manual provides:
Places of internment or detention shall not be located close to the combat zone. When the place of detention becomes particularly exposed to danger from the conflict, persons held shall be evacuated. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-3, § 26.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs):
1023. Evacuation of PW
1. PWs must be evacuated from the combat zone and away from any danger areas as soon as possible. The only exception allowed is in respect of those who, because of wounds or sickness, would run greater risk by being moved. Captives may not be exposed to unnecessary dangers during evacuation. PWs taken in “unusual combat conditions” and who cannot be evacuated must be released and all “feasible” steps taken for their safety.
1024. PW camps
1. PWs may only be interned on land. Centres of internment must be established in healthy areas, with PWs having facilities guaranteeing hygiene and healthfulness. They must not be detained in penitentiaries. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1023–1024.1.
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 “Treatment of internees”, the manual states:
4. Internment camps must not be located in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war and, whenever military considerations permit, must be marked for protection against air attack. Internees shall be accommodated separately from PWs and from imprisoned criminals.
5. The buildings of internment camps must have adequate heat, light and sanitary conveniences. Premises for the holding of religious services must be made available. Canteens must be made available in the camps to purchase local goods unless adequate alternative facilities are available. An adequate number of air raid shelters for the use of internees must be built in every camp. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1129.4–5.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
Places of internment or detention shall not be located close to the combat zone. When the place of detention becomes particularly exposed to danger from the conflict, persons held shall be evacuated under conditions of safety. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1715.3.
Canada
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states with regard to the POW Collecting Point (the first point in the prisoner-of-war (PW) handling process):
No PW may at any time be sent to, or detained in areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, p. 3B-4, § B005.2.c.
With regard to the construction of prisoner-of-war holding facilities, the manual states:
[The 1949 Geneva Convention III] sets out the legal basis for the internment of PW. The same Convention lays down very specific provisions for the conduct of PW Holding Areas and Camps. In summary, they require that:
a. PW are only to be detained in facilities which are based on land and in circumstances which guarantee the maintenance of adequate standards of hygiene and health. PW are not normally to be detained in prisons.
b. PW are to be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power that are billeted in the same area. These conditions must take into account the habits and customs of the PW and must be in no way prejudicial to their health. This requirement applies particularly to the arrangements made for PW dormitories.
c. Accommodation is to be protected from damp, adequately heated and lighted, particularly at night and protected against fire. Latrine facilities for use both by day and night are to be provided. Baths and showers are to be provided together with sufficient supplies of water for personal toilet and laundry. Adequate facilities are to be provided for messing.
d. A medical centre capable of accommodating sick PW is to be provided. Adequate premises and the necessary equipment for PW to take exercise are also required whenever military considerations permit. PW Holding facilities are to be marked so as to be easily identifiable from the air by day. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 3E01.1.
The manual provides further instructions with regard to matters of hygiene:
1. The Detaining Power has a responsibility to ensure that all necessary measures are taken to prevent epidemics and to ensure that camps are maintained in a clean, sanitary and healthy condition.
2. Medical Hygiene. This will be achieved by a programme of inspection, inoculation and de-infestation of PW on arrival at the camp. PW found to be suffering from infectious diseases are to be placed in quarantine.
3. Sanitation. Toilet facilities which conform to the rules of hygiene and which are maintained in working order are to be available for the use of PW during the day and the night…
4. Personal Hygiene. Baths or showers with sufficient water and soap are to be provided for PW. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 3F09.1–4.
Canada
Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008) states:
Chapter 4: Use of Force in International Operations
402. Types of International Operations
1. In general, there are four types of international operational relationships in which the CF [Canadian Forces] may participate with each one having unique considerations pertaining to the use of force, self-defence and rules of engagement:
a. Alliance. Alliance operations refer to operations conducted under a formal standing alliance such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or Canada-United States (CANUS). In these cases, there are formal policy, command-and-control and force structure instruments which will affect ROE [rules of engagement] development and application;
b. Coalition. A coalition is a less formal alliance which is normally limited to a specific mission. Coalitions normally lack the formal status of forces' agreements and infrastructure architectures that are common to alliances such as NATO. A coalition may operate under the legal umbrella of a UN Security Council resolution, but they are not UN missions. Once a mission or operation has been completed, the coalition is normally disbanded;
c. United Nations (UN). UN missions operate under a UN Security Council resolution and fall within the UN command-and-control structure; and
d. Unilateral. An international operation where Canadian forces are operating unilaterally within a region or area.
407. Supplementary Direction
3. Detainees. In support of the operational or security objectives of an international operation, Canadian forces may be required to detain persons. Reasons to detain include, but are not limited to, persons who do the following:
a. interfere with the accomplishment of the mission and related tasks;
b. otherwise use or threaten force against friendly forces, or the equipment and materials belonging to them, or under their protection;
c. enter an area under the control of friendly forces without prior authorization; and
d. are suspected of breaches of the law of armed conflict.
4. Where the use of deadly force is authorized in a given situation, that authority also includes the authority to detain persons against whom deadly force could have been used. In all other cases, specific ROE must be authorized in order to detain persons. The standards provided in the Geneva Conventions will be the minimum standard for the treatment of all detainees whether or not the Geneva Conventions legally apply during the operation. 
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, §§ 402.1 and 407.3–4.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) provides that, in both international and non-international armed conflicts, internment and detention centres shall be located in secure areas, away from the combat zones. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 21.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
Chapter 3. Identification
IV.8. Prisoner-of-war camps
In order to improve their safety, prisoner-of-war camps should be clearly marked by the protective sign PG [prisonnier de guerre] or PW [prisoner of war] … In principle, the parties exchange information concerning the location of prisoner-of-war camps, again, for reasons of safety.
Chapter 4. Behaviour in action
III.3. Identification of prisoners or war
… In all events, according to the law, prisoners of war must be evacuated so that they are out of danger as quickly as possible.
III.4. Evacuation
The main objective of evacuation is to allow prisoners of war to escape from the immediate danger in the battle zone. They must therefore be sent as far as possible towards the rear and in the meantime must not be exposed unnecessarily to danger. 
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. 27, 37–38, 39 and 46; 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, p. 34; 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, pp. 40–41.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.6. Evacuation of POWs [prisoners of war]
Prisoners of war shall be evacuated from the combat zone and removed from any zone of danger as quickly as possible. The only exception concerns those who, owing to wounds or sickness, would run greater risks by being evacuated. 
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. 64.
Croatia
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states that prisoner-of-war and internment camps must not be situated in combat zones. 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, §§ 99 and 100.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states:
Prisoners must be evacuated as soon as possible from the place of capture to assembly points located well away from the combat zone. While awaiting evacuation, they must not be exposed to danger unnecessarily.
Prisoners must be evacuated under the same conditions as Djiboutian troops, particularly with regard to security.
A list of evacuated prisoners must be compiled as soon as possible. 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 31(2).
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Prisoners of war shall not be needlessly exposed to the dangers of combat.” 
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. 102.
The manual also states: “The regulation of treatment of civilian internees is very similar to that of 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. 73.
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides that prisoner of war camps and civilian internment camps must not be exposed to the combat zone. 
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 Teaching Note (2000) states that internment camps for prisoners of war “must not be exposed to the combat zone”. 
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, p. 3.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “POW [prisoner of war] camps shall not be situated in danger zones.” 
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, § 714.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
As soon as possible after capture, PWs [prisoners of war] must be evacuated out of danger, unless wounds or sickness prevent their removal. Evacuation must be effected humanely and in conditions similar to the transportation of the Detaining Power’s own forces. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 9.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) provides: “The detaining state must evacuate the prisoners from the front as soon as possible, to get them out of harm’s way.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 52.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
The country imprisoning them is required to remove prisoners-of-war from the front as soon as possible so that they are not harmed and not put in danger. The transfer of prisoners-of-war shall take place in such a way as not to put them in danger, for example, it is forbidden to conduct death marches of POWs [prisoners of war], as the Japanese were accustomed to do with their prisoners-of-war. The presence of prisoners of war must not be used for the “protection” of military targets from attack; prisoners-of-war must be provided with air raid shelters and other protection, as for the local population. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 33.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that prisoners of war shall be located far enough from the combat line and in healthy areas. 
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. II, Chapter III, § 6 and Chapter XVI, § 118.
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) states:
If the prisoners are captured outside the combat zone (shipwrecked, flight crews from planes that were shot down or forced to land, and deserters, regardless of how they arrived), they are held in appropriate facilities until they can be conveyed under escort to the government collection points. 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 252.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “PW [prisoner of war] camps shall not be situated in combat zones.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, No. 8-0, § 01.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides:
Prisoners shall be evacuated as soon as possible to a gathering point located far enough from the combat zone. While waiting for their evacuation, they should not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. 
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: “Prisoners of war may not be sent to or detained in an area where they may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 161(C).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “Camps must not be located in areas where they may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. VII-6, § 4.
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “Detention and internment camps must not be located too close to the combat zone.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
0723. Evacuation
Prisoners of war must be removed from the battle zone as soon as possible after capture. …
Prisoners of war may not be exposed unnecessarily to danger during evacuation. Prisoners of war should be transferred to camps far from the battle zone.
Section 5 - Prisoner-of-war camps
0724. Prisoners of war are often interned in an enclosed camp, but may also be held in an open camp. In a remote region, an open camp is conceivable, in which case an obligation may be imposed on the prisoners of war not to go further than a given distance from the camp. Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or in areas where the climate is harmful to them, must be transferred as quickly as possible to areas with a more favourable climate.
0725. Camps may not be located in places exposed to fire from the combat zone. The presence of prisoners of war may not be used to render certain areas immune from military operations. … Prisoners of war should preferably not be interned on board ships. This rule may temporarily be waived if a ship is the only available alternative for their internment. Prisoners of war may be interned in former prisons only if there are no ordinary inmates in them and if the quarters otherwise meet the requirements for a prisoner-of-war camp. As far as possible, shelters against air bombardment and other hazards must be provided in the prisoner-of-war camp. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0723–0725.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
Those responsible for internment or imprisonment must observe the following, without limitation:
- not to locate places of internment and detention too close to the battle zone and, where necessary, to evacuate the persons affected. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1065.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
Camps must not be located near military objectives with the intention of securing exemption from attack for these objectives, and must be provided with the same protective measures against aerial attack as is the civilian population.
The manual adds:
The practice, common during World War I, of placing camps near military objectives as prophylactic reprisals on the ground that the enemy’s own forces had indulged in illegal activities is clearly forbidden.  
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 922(1), note 65.
The manual further states: “Internment camps must not be located in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1123(3).
With respect to non-international armed conflicts, the manual states that according to the 1977 Additional Protocol II, “places of internment or detention shall not be located close to the combat zone”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1814(3).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
[Commanders] must ensure that prisoner-of-war camps and internment camps for civilians and refugees and military hospitals are located away from military objectives and objects that, in view of their nature, location, purpose or use, could become major military objectives. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 24.c.(9).
The manual also states:
Enemy combatants who have been captured or surrender are prisoners of war and must be evacuated, as soon as possible, from the place of capture to a prisoner-of-war camp located far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 37.a; see also § 40.d.
The manual further states:
No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in, areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Prisoners of war must be safeguarded by the same protective measures as the local civilian population. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 41.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
[Commanders] must ensure that prisoner-of-war camps and internment camps for civilians and refugees and military hospitals are located away from military objectives and objects that, in view of their nature, location, purpose or use, could become major military objectives. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 25(c)(9), p. 228.
The manual also states: “Enemy combatants who have been captured or surrender are prisoners of war and must be evacuated, as soon as possible, from the place of capture to a prisoner-of-war camp located far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 38(a), p. 254; see also § 41(d), p. 256; p. 373; and § 99, p. 430.
The manual further states:
No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to, or detained in, areas where he may be exposed to the fire of the combat zone, nor may his presence be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Prisoners of war must be safeguarded by the same protective measures as the local civilian population. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 42, p. 257.
Poland
Poland’s Prisoner of War Handling Procedures (2009) states:
2.1 Capture
The capturing power shall:
g) as soon as possible, transport prisoners to the nearest holding centre, place of detention or prisoner-of-war camp;
2.2 Detention and transport of prisoners of war
The following principles shall apply to the detention and transport of prisoners of war:
d) prisoners of war may be transferred to holding centres or interrogation units;
f) prisoners of war shall be evacuated from unsafe or dangerous areas as soon as circumstances permit;
h) prisoners of war may be transferred from the place of capture to a special interrogation centre or place of detention;
2.3 Detention locations
2.3.3 Prisoner-of-war camps
Prisoners of war requiring interrogation shall be transferred to a prisoner-of-war camp immediately after questioning.
Prisoner-of-war camps shall be permanent structures, located away from the combat zone. 
Poland, Norma Obronna NO-02-A020:2000, Procedury postępowania z jeńcami wojennymi, enacted by decision No. 134/MON related to the Approval and Enforcement of Regulatory Instruments in Respect of State Defence and Security, 21 April 2009, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 8, Item 99, April 2009, Sections 2.1–2.3.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
The location of prisoner-of-war collection sites shall ensure the life and health of the prisoners of war. It is prohibited to locate the collection sites in the vicinity of nuclear industrial facilities, chemical and other potentially dangerous industrial installations or military objectives.
It is prohibited to use the prisoner-of-war collection sites as well as prisoners of war themselves as live shields to protect any objects or areas against enemy attacks. 
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, § 156.
Senegal
Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) provides that one of the fundamental guarantees common to IHL conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that detention centres shall not be located close to trouble zones. Persons deprived of their liberty shall be evacuated when the place becomes particularly dangerous. 
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, pp. 3 and 24.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states that prisoners of war are “entitled to protection” and that this protection includes “[r]emoval from the combat zone as soon as the tactical situation allows it”. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 74.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that detention centres must be located in an area far enough from the combat zones. 
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, § 6.4.a.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Prisoner-of-war camps must be located as far as possible from the combat zone, in inland areas if possible.” 
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, § 6.4.a; see also §§ 5.3.d, 6.2.b.(5) and 8.3.c.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “Internment shall always take place in premises located on land, where the climate is favourable and where security conditions are sufficient.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 118.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states with regard to prisoner-of-war camps: “Correct behaviour … The camps must be situated at a sufficient distance to combat zones and must be marked.” 
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 Organisation of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
With regard to internee camps, the Aide-Memoire also states: “Correct behaviour … The camps must be situated at a sufficient distance to combat zones and must be marked.” 
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 Organisation of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
182 Persons who clearly indicate their willingness to surrender may not be attacked. As soon as circumstances permit, they must be searched, disarmed and evacuated from the danger zone. This must be done while constantly ensuring one’s own safety at all times (surveying the battlefield, cover, protection against fire).
185 Mission orders must contain directives for the evacuation and internment of prisoners of war.
189 The final legal status of captured persons is determined by a military tribunal and not by the military unit that took them prisoner. Therefore, the troops treat captured persons with the same respect and in accordance with the same rules as prisoners of war, even when their status is uncertain. 
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, §§ 182, 185 and 189.
[emphasis in original]
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
2.5.4.8. During hostilities the prisoners of war shall be evacuated from the area of combat within a short time and directed to the brigade reception station for prisoners of war for their initial registration.
Evacuation of the prisoners of war from the combat area shall be carried out with appropriate security measures and accompanied by a detachment appointed by the commander of the unit.
Only those prisoners of war who, owing to wounds or sickness, would run greater risks by being evacuated than by remaining where they are, may be temporarily kept back in a danger zone.
2.5.4.9. Brigade reception station for prisoners of war shall be established by an order of the commander of a unit outside the combat organization of the unit.
Location of the brigade reception stations for prisoners of war shall ensure safety of the lives and health of prisoners of war.
2.5.4.15. … It shall be prohibited:
- to situate camps (centres) of prisoners of war in the vicinity of enterprises of atomic energy, chemical and other potentially hazardous objects of industry, as well as of military objectives;
- use of camps (centres) for prisoners of war as well as the prisoners of war themselves to protect by their presence military objectives or any other areas of the capturing party. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 2.5.4.8–2.5.4.9 and 2.5.4.15.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states: “Internment camps must be outside the combat zone.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 147.
The manual also provides: “Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises which are on land and which are in every way healthy and hygienic.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 146.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states: “PW [prisoner of war] camps must be located on land, not in prison ships, and afford every guarantee of hygiene and health.” 
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 8, p. 30, § 16(a).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on the protection of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict:
The detaining power must take all necessary and possible measures to ensure that protected persons are, from the outset of their internment, “accommodated in buildings or quarters which afford every possible safeguard as regards hygiene and health, and provide efficient protection against the rigours of the climate and the effects of the war.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.38.
On prisoners of war, the manual states:
As soon as possible after capture, prisoners of war must be evacuated to camps far enough from the fighting to be out of danger. Only those who because of wounds or sickness would run greater risks by being moved than by remaining where they are may be kept temporarily in a danger zone. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.35.
The manual further states: “Camps must be on land and in places which are healthy, hygienic and out of danger.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.37.
The manual also explains: “Prisoners of war must be protected to the same extent as the civilian population from the dangers of war including the provision and use of shelters”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.39.
With regard to internal armed conflicts in which the 1977 Additional Protocol II is applicable, the manual provides:
Those responsible for the internment or detention are also placed under obligation “within the limits of their capabilities” to “respect” some further provisions relating to persons interned or detained for reasons relating to the armed conflict. These are:
c. that places of internment and detention shall not be located close to the combat zone. Protected internees and detainees shall be evacuated when the places where they are interned or detained become particularly exposed to danger arising out of the armed conflict, if their evacuation can be carried out under adequate conditions of safety. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.41.c.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) states: “The Detaining Power shall not set up places of internment in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war.” 
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, § 290.
The manual also states: “Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness.” 
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, § 98.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) requires “internment only on land and not in unhealthy areas”. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations , US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 13-4.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “All detainees shall … [b]e removed as soon as practicable from the point of capture and transported to detainee collection points, holding facilities, or other internment facilities operated by DOD [Department of Defense] Components.” 
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, § 11.2.
The Handbook also states:
International treaty law expressly prohibits “internment” of prisoners of war other than in premises on land, but does not address temporary stay on board vessels. U.S. policy permits detention of prisoners-of-war, civilian internees, and detained persons on naval vessels as follows:
1. When picked up at sea, they may be temporarily held on board as operational needs dictate, pending a reasonable opportunity to transfer them to a shore facility or to another vessel for evacuation to a shore facility.
2. They may be temporarily held on board naval vessels while being transported between land facilities.
3. They may be temporarily held on board naval vessels if such detention would appreciably improve their safety or health prospects.
Detention on board vessels must be truly temporary, limited to the minimum period necessary to evacuate such persons from the combat zone or to avoid significant harm such persons would face if detained on land. Use of immobilized vessels for temporary detention of prisoners of war, civilian internees, or detained persons is not authorized without Secretary of Defense approval. 
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, § 11.3.1.4.
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states: “Force Protection. To the maximum extent possible, places of detention will be protected from the hazards of the battlefield … As a general rule, detainees should derive the same benefit from force protection measures as do members of the detaining force.” 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. III-6–III-7.
In a chapter on “Capture and Initial Detention and Screening”, the manual states:
Consistent with longstanding military practice, individuals captured or detained by U.S. forces must be evacuated expeditiously through transit points to reach an internment facility in a secure area.
When captured, detainees will normally be held at the detainee collection point (DCP) pending their immediate evacuation. The DCP will support the rapid transfer of control from capturing forces to U.S. MP custody and control … It should therefore be located close to the area of actual operations for quick evacuation of detainees, but should also be situated in a location intended to provide for the safety and security of the detainees and the security force. For example, the DCP could normally be located in a brigade support area of the brigade combat team, or an equivalent type unit. Detainees should be transported from the DCP to the detainee holding area (DHA) as soon as practicable. The DHA will normally be located in a secure location that provides safety and is easily accessible for receipt and evacuation of detainees …
… The DHA should be located in a secure area with easy access to transportation nodes, but must be protected from the effects of the battlefield to the extent feasible based on the mission, enemy, terrain and weather, troops and support available-time available (METT-T) …
… All locations where detainees are held by U.S. forces must, to the extent feasible based on METT-T, be shielded from the dangers associated with military operations. Commanders should attempt to utilize building-type structures for internment facilities. However, although this may be a preference, there is no prohibition against using less-improved facilities when they offer the best available option for satisfying all legal and policy obligations related to detainee treatment, particularly when use of an improved structure is not feasible. There is no legal requirement to provide detainees with conditions better than those of the U.S. forces executing the detainee operation mission. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. IV-1–IV-2, IV-4 and IV-6.
In a chapter on “Transport Procedures”, the manual states:
5. Detainee Movement by Maritime Transportation
… [M]aritime transportation … normally … will not be considered as a location for detention (in rare circumstances, temporary maritime detention may provide the best course of action to protect detainees from operational and environmental hazards) … When maritime detention is used, … [it] must meet the requirements of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. V-2.
In a chapter on “Transfer or Release from Detention”, the manual states: “As a general rule, detainees should not be transferred closer to the harmful effects of military operations.” 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. VII-3.
The manual also states:
Detainee Categories
The DOD [Department of Defense] definition of the word “detainee” includes any person captured, detained, or otherwise under the control of DOD personnel (military, civilian, or contractor employee) … It does not include persons being held primarily for law enforcement purposes except where the United States is the occupying power …
a. Enemy Combatant. In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term “enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.”
b. Enemy Prisoner of War. Individual under the custody and/or control of the DOD according to Articles 4 and 5 of the … [1949 Geneva Convention III].
c. Retained Personnel … Personnel who fall into the following categories: official medical personnel of the armed forces exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport, or treatment of wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, and staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and facilities; chaplains attached to enemy armed forces; staff of national Red Cross Societies and that of other volunteer aid societies duly recognized and authorized by their governments to assist medical service personnel of their own armed forces, provided they are exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of, the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, and provided that the staff of such societies are subject to military laws and regulations.
d. Civilian Internee … A civilian who is interned during an armed conflict, occupation, or other military operation for security reasons, for protection, or because he or she has committed an offense against the detaining power. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. I-3–I-5; see also pp. viii and GL-3.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides: “The Armed Forces of Azerbaijan, the appropriate authorities and governmental bodies are not allowed to keep prisoners of war in the territory of Azerbaijan in the zone of hostilities.” 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 19.
The Law further provides that prisoners of war are entitled “to be kept in buildings situated in a zone ensuring protection of security, hygiene and health”. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 22(4).
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).
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).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Articles 22 and 23 of the Geneva Convention III and Articles 83 and 85 of the Geneva Convention IV, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 5(1)(b) and (2)(c), 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.
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 … 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.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states:
[Members of the armed forces] must treat [prisoners and detainees] humanely and with respect … avoiding situating them in areas exposed to the risks of combat. Within the shortest possible time, [members of the armed forces] will evacuate them to an area far away from the zone of combat in order to put them out of harm’s way. 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 110.
United States of America
In 2009, the US President issued Executive Order 13492, Closure of Guantánamo Detention Facilities, which stated:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:
Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. 
United States, Executive Order 13492, Closure of Guantánamo Detention Facilities, 2009, Section 6.
Canada
In 2008, in the Amnesty International Canada case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to persons detained by the Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan and their transfer to Afghan authorities. The Federal Court stated:
[13] To assist in resolving this dispute in a timely and efficient manner, the parties have jointly agreed to have the issue of whether the Charter applies in the context [of] Canada’s military involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan determined on the basis of the following questions, pursuant to Rule 107(1) of the Federal Courts Rules:
1. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply during the armed conflict in Afghanistan to the detention of non-Canadians by the Canadian Forces or their transfer to Afghan authorities to be dealt with by those authorities?
2. If the answer to the above question is “NO” then would the Charter nonetheless apply if the Applicants were ultimately able to establish that the transfer of the detainees in question would expose them to a substantial risk of torture?
[16] For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the answer to both of the questions posed by the motion is “No”. As a result, the applicants’ application for judicial review must therefore be dismissed.
II. Background
[44] Even before the Afghan Compact was concluded, the governments of Canada and Afghanistan had signed a document outlining the nature of Canada’s involvement and powers within Afghanistan: see the “Technical Arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”, dated December 18, 2005.
[47] The Technical Arrangements further provide that:
Canadian personnel may need to use force (including deadly force) to ensure the accomplishment of their operational objectives, the safety of the deployed force, including designated persons, designated property, and designated locations. Such measures could include the use of close air support, firearms or other weapons; the detention of persons; and the seizure of arms and other materiel. Detainees would be afforded the same treatment as Prisoners of War. Detainees would be transferred to Afghan authorities in a manner consistent with international law and subject to negotiated assurances regarding their treatment and transfer. …
[59] Theatre Standing Order 321A further provides that while in Canadian custody, detainees are to be “treated fairly and humanely” in accordance with “applicable international law and CF Doctrine”.
IV. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply during the armed conflict in Afghanistan to the detention of non-Canadians by the Canadian forces or their transfer to Afghan authorities to be dealt with by those authorities?
[162] Insofar as the relationship between the Governments of Afghanistan and Canada is concerned, the two countries have expressly identified international law, including international humanitarian law, as the law governing the treatment of detainees in Canadian custody.
[166] … [I]n relation to the treatment of detainees, Article 1.2 of the Technical Arrangements provides that detainees are to be afforded “the same treatment as Prisoners of War”, and are to be transferred to Afghan authorities “in a manner consistent with international law and subject to negotiated assurances regarding their treatment and transfer.” …
[179] The understanding between the Governments of Afghanistan and Canada that Afghan and international law are the legal regimes to be applied to the detainees in Canadian custody is also reflected in Canadian documents dealing with the treatment of detainees.
[180] In particular, Task Force Afghanistan’s Theatre Standing Order 321A recognizes international law as the appropriate standard governing the treatment of detainees. In this regard, Article 3 states that it is Canadian Forces policy that all detainees be treated to the standard required for prisoners of war, which it describes as being the highest standard required under international law.
[181] Moreover, Article 18 of TSO 321A provides that while in Canadian custody, detainees are to be “treated fairly and humanely” in accordance with “applicable international law and CF Doctrine”. …
VI. Conclusion
[336] … [A] number of concerns … flow from the Court’s finding that the Charter does not apply in the circumstances of this case.
[337] As was noted by Justice Binnie in Hape, the content of human rights protections provided by international law is weaker, and their scope more debatable than Charter guarantees …
[338] Moreover, the enforcement mechanisms for those standards may not be as robust as those available under the Charter, and have even been described as “rather gentle” …
[342] That said, the Supreme Court of Canada has carefully considered the scope of the Charter’s extraterritorial reach in R. v. Hape, and has concluded that its reach is indeed very limited. Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Hape to the facts of this case leads to the conclusion that the Charter does not apply to the actions of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan in issue here.
[343] Before concluding, it must be noted that the finding that the Charter does not apply does not leave detainees in a legal “no-man’s land”, with no legal rights or protections. The detainees have the rights conferred on them by the Afghan Constitution. In addition, whatever their limitations may be, the detainees also have the rights conferred on them by international law, and, in particular, by international humanitarian law. 
Canada, Federal Court, Amnesty International Canada case, Judgment, 12 March 2008, §§ 13, 16, 44, 47, 59, 162, 166, 179–181, 336–338 and 342–343.
[emphasis in original]
The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the findings of the Federal Court. It stated:
I conclude that the motions judge made no errors in answering the way she did the two questions that were before her. The Charter has no application to the situations therein described. There is no legal vacuum, considering that the applicable law is international humanitarian law. 
Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Amnesty International Canada case, Judgment, 17 December 2008, § 36.
Denmark
In 2006, in a report on the detention and transfer of persons in Afghanistan in 2002, the Danish Ministry of Defence explained that the Defence Command’s confidential Directive for the Army Operational Command concerning the use of force during Operation Enduring Freedom of 24 January 2002 provided that “[p]risoners of war must be immediately evacuated from the battlefield and brought to safety”. 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, p. 7.
When discussing the protection afforded to prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Convention III, the report stated that “prisoners of war may only be interned in premises located on land that meet all hygiene and health requirements”. 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, p. 3.
Malaysia
In 2010, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
8. [The delegate of Malaysia] said that …
10. … [t]he laws of naval warfare incorporated the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including necessity and proportionality …
11. [In the case of the attacks by the Israel Defense Forces on the Mavi Marmara and five accompanying vessels in May 2010] … [w]here vessels were captured, the protections provided in the Second and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 and [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I continued to apply to the persons on board the vessels. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2010, as published in the summary record of the 13th meeting, 8 December 2010, UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.13, §§ 8, 10 and 11.
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 5 prescribing humane treatment of persons whose liberty ha[s] been restricted … 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, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, § 75.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, wrote:
Upon being taken prisoner, Iraqi combatants are evacuated to a safe location, away from the dangers of combat, as soon as is practicable. They are held initially at collection points by the unit taking them prisoner, where their identity is established and recorded. They are then transferred to a more permanent holding facility. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 14 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 572W.
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:
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:
12.15 … Persons deprived of their liberty must be held in premises which are removed from the combat zone and which safeguard their health and hygiene. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, §§ 12 and 12.5, pp. 28 and 32.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In 1991, in a diplomatic note to Iraq concerning operations in the Gulf War, the United States advised the Government of Iraq that: “Iraqi prisoners of war … will not be exposed to danger … [and] will be safeguarded against harm during combat operations.” 
United States, Department of State, Diplomatic Note to Iraq, Washington, 19 January 1991, annexed to Letter dated 21 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22122, 21 January 1991, Annex I, p. 2.
United States of America
In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated:
Iraqi authorities have continued to ignore the standards of the Geneva conventions in blatant disregard for international law. They have … deliberately exposed [coalition prisoners of war] to combat danger. 
United States, Letter dated 8 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22216, 13 February 1991, p. 2; see also Letter dated 22 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22130, 22 January 1991.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, “Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II] reflect general US policy on treatment of persons in the power of an adverse party in armed conflicts governed by common Article 3” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The report also notes: “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.
No data.
No data.
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
In its Prisoners of War (Eritrea’s Claim) partial award in 2003, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, in considering the obligation to remove persons deprived of their liberty from the combat zone, stated:
A State’s obligation to ensure humane treatment of enemy soldiers can be severely tested in the heated and confused moments immediately following capture or surrender and during evacuation from the battlefront to the rear. Nevertheless, customary international law as reflected in [the 1949] Geneva Conventions I and III … demands prompt and humane evacuation. 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 1 July 2003, § 58.
[footnote in original omitted]
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
No prisoner of war may at any time be sent to or detained in areas where he may be exposed to combat actions. Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate … Prisoner of war camps shall not be located in areas exposed to combat action. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 671, 672 and 675; see also § 839 (application mutatis mutandis of the regulations for the treatment of prisoners of war to civilian internees).
ICRC
In a press release in 1985, the ICRC stated that the closure of the Insar camp in southern Lebanon and the subsequent transfer by the Israeli occupation authorities of more than 1,000 of the inmates to Israel was a violation of Articles 49 and 76 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1504, South Lebanon: Closure of Insar Camp, 4 April 1985.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “Persons deprived of their freedom, both civilians and military personnel, … must not be detained in the vicinity of combat zones.” 
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 that particular care should be taken to ensure that persons are “detained at locations where their safety is guaranteed”. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, Geneva, 23 June 1994, § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
No data.