Practice Relating to Rule 158. Prosecution of War Crimes

Note: Many States have conducted investigations and prosecutions of persons suspected of having committed war crimes. These are not all listed under this Rule individually. In general, practice on investigations and prosecutions of persons suspected of having committed war crimes is included under the respective subject-specific rules. For example, for investigations and prosecutions concerning allegations of torture as a war crime, see Rule 90.
IMT Charter (Nuremberg)
Article 6 of the 1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg) provides:
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. 
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, concluded by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto, annexed to the London Agreement, London, 8 August 1945, Article 6.
Genocide Convention
Article VI of the 1948 Genocide Convention provides:
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction. 
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 260 A (III), 9 December 1948, Article VI.
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 129 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provide:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in [Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV].
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case. Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in [Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV]. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 49; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 50; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 129; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 146.
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 28 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to take, within the framework of their ordinary criminal jurisdiction, all necessary steps to prosecute and impose penal or disciplinary sanctions upon those persons, of whatever nationality, who commit or order to be committed a breach of the present Convention. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 28.
Additional Protocol I
Article 85(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The provisions of the Conventions relating to the repression of breaches and grave breaches, supplemented by this Section, shall apply to the repression of breaches and grave breaches of this Protocol.” The grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are defined in Articles 11(4), 85(3) and 85(4). 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Articles 11(4) and 85(1), (3) and (4). Articles 11 and 85 were adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 69; Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages
Article 8(1) of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages provides:
The State Party in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State. 
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 34/146, 17 December 1979, Article 8(1).
However, Article 12 of the Convention states:
In so far as the [1949] Geneva Conventions … or the [1977] Additional Protocols to those Conventions are applicable to a particular act of hostage-taking, and in so far as States Parties to this Convention are bound under those conventions to prosecute or hand over the hostage-taker, the present Convention shall not apply to an act of hostage-taking committed in the course of armed conflicts as defined in the [1949] Geneva Conventions … and the Protocols thereto, including armed conflicts mentioned in [Article 1(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination. 
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 34/146, 17 December 1979, Article 12.
Convention against Torture
Article 5 of the 1984 Convention against Torture provides:
Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article.  
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 39/46, 10 December 1984, Article 5. Similar requirements to prosecute or extradite are also found in: 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, Article 4; 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, Article 7; 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Article 22(2)(a)(iv); 1971 OAS Convention to Prevent and Punish Acts of Terrorism, Article 5; 1972 Protocol Amending the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Article 14; 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, Article V; 1973 Convention on Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Article 7; 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Article 7; 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, Article 9; 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, Article 10; 1989 UN Mercenary Convention, Article 12.
Convention against Torture
Article 7 of the 1984 Convention against Torture emphasizes States’ duty to prosecute or extradite alleged offenders, stating:
The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. 
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 39/46, 10 December 1984, Article 7.
Chemical Weapons Convention
Article 7(1) of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention provides:
Each State Party shall, in accordance with its constitutional processes, adopt the necessary measures to implement its obligations under this Convention. In particular, it shall:
(a) Prohibit natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory or in any other place under its jurisdiction as recognized by international law from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention, including enacting penal legislation with respect to such activity;
(b) Not permit in any place under its control any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention; and
(c) Extend its penal legislation enacted under subparagraph (a) to any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken anywhere by natural persons, possessing its nationality, in conformity with international law. 
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, Paris, 13 January 1993, Article 7(1).
Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel
Article 9(2) of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN Personnel provides: “Each State Party shall make the crimes set out in paragraph 1 [of Article 9] punishable by appropriate penalties which shall take into account their grave nature.” 
Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 49/59, 9 December 1994, Article 9(2).
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons
Article IV of the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons provides:
The acts constituting the forced disappearance of persons shall be considered offenses in every State Party. Consequently, each State Party shall take measures to establish its jurisdiction over such cases in the following instances:
a. When the forced disappearance of persons or any act constituting such offense was committed within its jurisdiction;
b. When the accused is a national of that state;
c. When the victim is a national of that state and that state sees fit to do so.
Every State Party shall, moreover, take the necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the crime described in this Convention when the alleged criminal is within its territory and it does not proceed to extradite him. 
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted by the Twenty-fourth Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly, Res. 1256 (XXIV-O/94), Belém do Pará, 9 June 1994, Article IV.
However, Article XV excludes the application of the Convention in international armed conflicts governed by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. 
Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted by the Twenty-fourth Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly, Res. 1256 (XXIV-O/94), Belém do Pará, 9 June 1994, Article XV.
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 14 of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
1. Each High Contracting Party shall take all appropriate steps, including legislative and other measures, to prevent and suppress violations of this Protocol by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction and control.
2. The measures envisaged in paragraph 1 of this Article include appropriate measures to ensure the imposition of penal sanctions against persons who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of this Protocol, wilfully kill or cause serious injury to civilians and to bring such persons to justice. 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 14.
Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines
Article 9 of the 1997 Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines provides:
Each State Party shall take all appropriate legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention undertaken by persons or on territory under its jurisdiction or control. 
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, Ottawa, 18 September 1997, Article 9.
ICC Statute
The preamble to the 1998 ICC Statute provides:
Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international co-operation,
Recalling that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9.
ICC Statute
Article 12 of the 1998 ICC Statute provides:
1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.
2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of registration of that vessel or aircraft;
(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.
3. If the acceptance of a State which is not a Party to this Statute is required under paragraph 2, that State may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to the crime in question. The accepting State shall cooperate with the Court without any delay or exception in accordance with Part 9. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 12.
ICC Statute
Article 13 of the 1998 ICC Statute provides:
The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:
(a) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by a State Party in accordance with article 14;
(b) A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations; or
(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 13.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 15(2) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property concerning “Serious violations of this Protocol” provides:
Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the offences set forth in this Article [i.e. serious violations of the Protocol] and to make such offences punishable by appropriate penalties. When doing so, Parties shall comply with general principles of law and international law, including the rules extending individual criminal responsibility to persons other than those who directly commit the act.  
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 15(2).
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 16(1) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property concerning “Jurisdiction” provides:
Without prejudice to paragraph 2, each Party shall take the necessary legislative measures to establish its jurisdiction over offences set forth in Article 15 in the following cases:
(a) when such an offence is committed in the territory of that State;
(b) when the alleged offender is a national of that State;
(c) in the case of offences set forth in Article 15 sub-paragraphs (a) to (c), when the alleged offender is present in its territory. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 16(1).
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 17(1) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property concerning “Prosecution” provides:
The Party in whose territory the alleged offender of an offence set forth in Article 15 subparagraphs 1(a) to (c) is found to be present shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities, for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with its domestic law or with, if applicable, the relevant rules of international law. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 17(1).
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 21 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property concerning “Measures regarding other violations” provides:
Each Party shall adopt such legislative, administrative or disciplinary measures as may be necessary to suppress the following acts when committed intentionally:
(a) any use of cultural property in violation of the Convention or this Protocol;
(b) any illicit export, other removal or transfer of ownership of cultural property from occupied territory in violation of the Convention or this Protocol. 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 21.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 22(1) of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides: “This Protocol shall apply in the event of an armed conflict not of an international character, occurring within the territory of one of the Parties.” 
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 22(1).
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
Article 1 of the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict provides: “States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who have not attained the age of 18 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” 
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 54/263, 25 May 2000, Annex I, Article 1.
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
Article 4(1) and (2) of the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict provides:
1. Armed groups that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years.
2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to prevent such recruitment and use, including the adoption of legal measures necessary to prohibit and criminalize such practices. 
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 54/263, 25 May 2000, Annex I, Article 4(1) and (2).
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict
Article 6(1) of the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict provides: “Each State Party shall take all necessary legal, administrative and other measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the present Protocol within its jurisdiction.” 
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 54/263, 25 May 2000, Annex I, Article 6(1).
UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea
The 2003 UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea provides:
Article 1
Purpose
The purpose of the present Agreement is to regulate the cooperation between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia in bringing to trial senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those who were most responsible for the crimes and serious violations of Cambodian penal law, international humanitarian law and custom, and international conventions recognized by Cambodia, that were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979 …
Article 9
Crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers shall be the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, crimes against humanity as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and such other crimes as defined in Chapter II of the Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers as promulgated on 10 August 2001. 
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Articles 1–2(1) and 9.
In accordance with Article 2 of the Agreement, Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended, further implements these provisions. 
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 2.
Convention on Enforced Disappearance
The 2006 Convention on Enforced Disappearance provides:
Recalling … relevant international instruments in the fields of human rights, humanitarian law and international criminal law,
Article 3
Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to investigate acts defined in article 2 [enforced disappearance] committed by persons or groups of persons acting without the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State and to bring those responsible to justice.
Article 4
Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes an offence under its criminal law.
Article 5
The widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity as defined in applicable international law and shall attract the consequences provided for under such applicable international law.
Article 7
1. Each State Party shall make the offence of enforced disappearance punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account its extreme seriousness.
Article 9
1. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to establish its competence to exercise jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance:
(a) When the offence is committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
(b) When the alleged offender is one of its nationals;
(c) When the disappeared person is one of its nationals and the State Party considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its competence to exercise jurisdiction over the offence of enforced disappearance when the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction, unless it extradites or surrenders him or her to another State in accordance with its international obligations or surrenders him or her to an international criminal tribunal whose jurisdiction it has recognized.
Article 11
1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed an offence of enforced disappearance is found shall, if it does not extradite that person or surrender him or her to another State in accordance with its international obligations or surrender him or her to an international criminal tribunal whose jurisdiction it has recognized, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State Party. 
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 61/177, 20 December 2006, Annex, Articles 3–5, 7(1), 9 (1)-(2) and 11(1)-(2).
New Delhi Draft Rules
Article 19 of the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules provides:
All States or Parties concerned are under the obligation to search for and bring to trial any person having committed, or ordered to be committed, an infringement of the present rules, unless they prefer to hand the person over for trial to another State or Party concerned with the case. 
Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, drafted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, September 1956, submitted to governments for their consideration on behalf of the 19th International Conference of the Red Cross, New Delhi, 28 October–7 November, Res. XIII, Article 19.
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions
Paragraph 18 of the 1989 Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions provides:
Governments shall ensure that persons identified by the investigation as having participated in extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions in any territory under their jurisdiction are brought to justice. Governments shall either bring such persons to justice or cooperate to extradite any such persons to other countries wishing to exercise jurisdiction. This principle shall apply irrespective of who and where the perpetrators or the victims are, their nationalities or where the offence was committed. 
Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, recommended by the UN Economic and Social Council, Res. 1989/65, 24 May 1989, § 18.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 6(1) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, dealing with the “Obligation to try or extradite”, provides: “A State in whose territory an individual alleged to have committed a crime against the peace and security of mankind is present shall either try or extradite him.” 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 6(1).
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 10 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides: “The Parties … shall repress any misuse of the [red cross] emblem and attacks on persons or property under its protection.” 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, Article 10.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 11 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides:
Each party undertakes, when it is officially informed of [an allegation of violations of IHL] made or forwarded by the ICRC, to open an inquiry promptly and pursue it conscientiously, and to take the necessary steps to put an end to the alleged violations or prevent their recurrence and to punish those responsible in accordance with the law in force. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, Article 11.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Article 3 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides: “The Parties … shall repress any misuse of the [red cross] emblem or attacks on persons or property under its protection.” 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, Article 3.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Article 5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides:
Each party undertakes, when it is informed, in particular by the ICRC, of an allegation of violations of international humanitarian law, to open an enquiry promptly and pursue it conscientiously, and to take the necessary steps to put an end to the alleged violations or prevent their recurrence and to punish those responsible in accordance with the law in force. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, Article 5.
ICTY Statute
Article 1 of the 1993 ICTY Statute provides:
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 1.
Protocol of Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front on the Rule of Law
Article 16 of the 1992 Protocol of Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front on the Rule of Law provides: “The two parties also agree to establish an International Commission of Enquiry to investigate human rights violations committed during the war.” 
Protocol of Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front on the Rule of Law, signed at Arusha on 18th September, 1992, Article 16, as annexed to the Arusha Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front, Arusha, 4 August 1993.
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala
Article III(1) of the 1994 Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala provides:
The Parties agree on the need for a firm action against impunity. The Government shall not sponsor the adoption of legislative or any other type of measures designed to prevent the prosecution and punishment of persons responsible for human rights violations. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, Mexico City, 29 March 1994, annexed to Letter dated 8 April 1994 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. A/48/928-S/1994/448, 19 April 1994, Annex I, Article III(1).
Article III(3) provides: “No special law or exclusive jurisdiction may be invoked to uphold impunity in respect of human rights violations.” 
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, Mexico City, 29 March 1994, annexed to Letter dated 8 April 1994 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. A/48/928-S/1994/448, 19 April 1994, Annex I, Article III(3).
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict
Paragraph 20 of the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict provides: “In the event of breaches of rules of international humanitarian law protecting the environment, measures shall be taken to stop any such violation and to prevent further breaches.”  
Revised Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross and presented to the UN Secretary-General, annexed to Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Decade of International Law, UN Doc. A/49/323, 19 August 1994, pp. 49–53, § 20
ICTR Statute
Article 1 of the 1994 ICTR Statute provides:
The International Tribunal for Rwanda shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States, between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 1.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Article 9 of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, entitled “Obligation to extradite or prosecute”, provides:
Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court, the State Party in the territory of which an individual alleged to have committed a crime set out in articles 17, 18, 19 or 20 [crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes against United Nations and associated personnel, war crimes] is found shall extradite or prosecute that individual. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 9.
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 4 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “In cases of violations of international humanitarian law, members of the military personnel of a United Nations force are subject to prosecution in their national courts.” 
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 4.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 3 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides:
The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and enforce international human rights and humanitarian law includes, inter alia, a State’s duty to:
(a) Take appropriate legal and administrative measures to prevent violations;
(b) Investigate violations and, where appropriate, take action against the violator in accordance with domestic and international law;
(c) Provide victims with equal and effective access to justice irrespective of who may be the ultimate bearer of responsibility for the violation;
(d) Afford appropriate remedies to victims; and
(e) Provide for or facilitate reparation to victims. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 3.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 4 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides: “Violations of international … humanitarian law norms that constitute crimes under international law carry the duty to prosecute persons alleged to have committed these violations [and] to punish the perpetrators adjudged to have committed these violations.” 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 4.
Cairo Plan of Action
Paragraph 52 of the 2000 Cairo Plan of Action urges States “to implement international humanitarian law in full, in particular by adopting national legislation to tackle the culture of impunity and to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”. 
Cairo Plan of Action, adopted at the Africa-Europe Summit, held under the Aegis of the Organization of African Unity and the European Union, Cairo, 3–4 April 2000, § 52.
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire
The 2003 Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire provides:
1) At the invitation of the President of the French Republic, a Round Table of the Ivorian political forces met in Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003. It brought together the following parties FPI, MFA, MJP, MPCI, MPIGO, PDCI-RDA, PIT, RDR, UDCY, UDPCI … The delegations have shown high-mindedness to allow the Round Table to bring the positions closer together and to arrive at the following consensus, all elements of which – principles and annexes – have equal value:
Annex
VI-Rights and liberties of the human person
2) The government of national reconciliation shall demand the creation of an international commission which shall initiate enquiries and establish the facts all over the national territory in order to take inventory of the cases of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law since 19 September 2002.
3) Upon the report of the international commission of inquiry, the government of national reconciliation shall determine who must be brought before the courts in order to end impunity. Condemning in particular the actions of death squadrons and their commanders as well as the perpetrators of summary executions on the entirety of the territory, the Round Table considers that the perpetrators and accomplices of these activities will have to be brought before international criminal justice. 
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement between the political forces of Côte d’Ivoire, Round table of the Ivorian political forces, meeting at Linas-Marcoussis from 15 to 23 January 2003 and bringing together the following parties: FPI (Front Populaire Ivoirien), MFA (Mouvement des Forces d’Avenir), MJP (Mouvement pour la Justice et la Paix), MPCI (Mouvement Patriotique de Côte d’Ivoire), MPIGO (Mouvement Populaire Ivoirien du Grand Ouest), PDCI-RDA (Parti Démocratique de la Côte d’Ivoire-Rassemblement Démocratique Africain), PIT (Parti Ivoirien des Travailleurs), RDR (Rassemblement des Républicains), UDCY (Union Démocratique et Citoyenne), UDPCI (Union pour la Démocratie et la Paix en Côte d’Ivoire), Linas-Marcoussis, 24 January 2003, Text of the agreement, paragraph 1 and Annex, paragraphs VI. 2–3.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraphs 3(b) and 4 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provides:
3. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law, includes, inter alia, the duty to:
(b) Investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate, take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law.
4. In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.  
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, §§ 3(b) and 4.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2007)
Paragraph 10 of the 2007 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states:
In the event that allegations come to the attention of the Government of Afghanistan that a detainee transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities has been mistreated, the following corrective action will be undertaken: the Government of Afghanistan will investigate allegations of abuse and mistreatment and prosecute in accordance with national law and internationally applicable legal standards; the Government of Afghanistan will inform the Government of Canada, the AIHRC [Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission] and the ICRC of the steps it is taking to investigate such allegations and any corrective action taken. 
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 3 May 2007 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, § 10.
N’Djamena Declaration on Ending Recruitment and Use of Children by Armed Forces and Groups
In June 2010, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria, Niger and Sudan adopted the N’Djamena Declaration reiterated their “concern regarding the precarious situation of children affected by conflict and the consistent presence of children within armed forces and groups in [their] region” and pledged “[t]o harmonize national legislations with regional and international instruments in order to prohibit the recruitment and use of children by armed forces and armed groups, and prosecute perpetrators before competent courts.” 
N’Djamena Declaration adopted at the Regional Conference on Ending Recruitment and Use of Children by Armed Forces and Groups: Contributing to Peace, Justice and Development, signed by Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria, Niger and Sudan, N’Djamena, 7–9 June 2010, Preamble and § 2.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states:
In the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], it is provided that the governments shall take such legislative measures as may be necessary to determine adequate penal sanctions to be applied to persons committing or ordering the commission of any of the grave breaches; the persons accused of having committed, or of having ordered to commit, those breaches … shall be searched for.
… It is also possible to hand the author of the violations over to an international tribunal, in case such a tribunal has been established. 
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, § 8.02.
The manual also provides:
At the request of one of the parties to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested parties, concerning any alleged violation of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions. If an agreement is not reached as to the procedure of investigation, the parties shall agree to elect an arbitrator who shall decide the procedure to be followed.
If a violation is established, the parties to the conflict must put an end to it and repress it with the least possible delay. 
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, § 8.06.
In addition, the manual states: “The contracting parties and the parties to the conflict shall repress grave breaches and adopt the measures necessary to ensure that any violation of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I cease.” 
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, § 8.07.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Nations are required to search out, prosecute, and if necessary, extradite individuals who are suspected of breaches of LOAC. Other war crimes may be so serious as to warrant or justify instituting criminal prosecutions. In some cases serious war crimes will result in a formal war crimes trial. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1306.
The manual further states:
Notwithstanding the practical difficulties that may be experienced in bringing enemy war criminals to trial, ADF [Australian Defence Force] members should not underestimate the resolve of the Australian Government to vigorously prosecute war criminals. Given Australia’s demonstrated support for human rights, ADF members can expect that appropriate action will be taken should they violate LOAC. An international fact-finding commission has been established to investigate LOAC breaches. Australia has accepted the operation of this commission. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1310.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states: “The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, following the Second World War, … only confirmed what had happened after the First World War, i.e., prosecution of foreigners before national tribunals for violations of the law of war.” 
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. 18; see also p. 54.
The manual adds:
The application of the criminal law of war remains in the hands of national communities … Since the Second World War, national tribunals have … judged members of their own armed forces for “war crimes” or other punishable acts which cannot be justified by the situation of war. 
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. 19.
The manual further states:
The States signatory to the [1949 Geneva] Conventions undertook to take a series of measures to promote respect thereof.
These measures can be summarized as follows:
2) criminalization of grave breaches of the [1949] Geneva Conventions …
3) search for, identification of and prosecution by the national courts of the authors of grave breaches, regardless of their nationality, or delivery (extradition) of those authors to the State asking for them, within the limits of the legislation in force. 
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. 55.
Brazil
Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states:
The Joint Command … shall establish rules and procedures for immediately reporting and investigating violations [of the Law of Armed Conflict, international conventions and agreements to which Brazil is a party, as well as of the Rules of Engagement for Non-Combatants Evacuation Operations]. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, § 6.4.6.
The Operations Manual also states:
1.2.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations are conducted by the Ministry of Defence, upon request by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the evacuation of non-combatants whose lives are in danger, from their host country to a safe place of destination …
3.4.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations … may be triggered by sudden changes in the government of the host country, changes in its political or military orientation with regard to Brazil, or hostile threats to Brazilian citizens by internal or external forces in that country.
Annex A. Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict
3. The Law of Armed Conflict
According to the policy of the Ministry of Defence, the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict regulate the actions taken by the Joint Command in the defence of its personnel, property and equipment. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, §§ 1.2.1 and 3.4.1 and Annex A, § 3.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states:
The obligation to suppress breaches of the law of war takes the form … of aut dedere, aut judicare. It pledges any State to search for the authors of war crimes or crimes against humanity, either by penal prosecution … irrespective of their nationality, the nationality of the victims or the place where the acts were committed, or by extraditing the authors, according to the law of the State concerned, to the State which requests their extradition in order to prosecute them. 
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. 119; see also Part I bis, pp. 118 and 46.
The Regulations also states:
Burundi adheres to the definitions of the violations of the law of war set out in these statutes [including the 1998 ICC Statute] and accepts their suppression. … [I]n Burundi, any soldier suspected of having committed a violation of the law of war must be brought before the Conseil de Guerre or the Cour Militaire, depending on his rank … [A]ny civilian … accused of violations of the law of war must be brought before a civilian criminal court. 
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. 119.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that violators of IHL are “war criminals who may be brought before military tribunals”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 35.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states: “Any act contrary to respect for the Law of War must be sanctioned.” 
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. 25, § 121.1.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
The States Parties to the Geneva Conventions must incorporate in their domestic legislation (military justice codes or penal codes) the acts constituting grave breaches [of IHL]. The persons accused of committing these acts must be prosecuted by their States. 
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. 297, § 663.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 35. Responsibility and instruction
Within the framework of the rules of this chapter, the soldiers of the Cameroonian Defence Forces must make themselves thoroughly familiar with their responsibility as regards respect for international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflicts: the violation of these rules makes them war criminals who may be brought before national military courts or international criminal courts. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 35.
Canada
Canada’s Unit Guide (1990) notes that the 1949 Geneva Conventions “impose an obligation on all nations which have ratified them to search for and try all persons who committed or ordered to be committed grave breaches of the Conventions”. 
Canada, Unit Guide for the Geneva Conventions, Canadian Forces Publication C 318(4), 1990, § 702.1.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:
Parties to the conflict shall take such measures as may be necessary to suppress and punish all breaches of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. If a breach amounts to a grave breach all persons responsible therefor, or having ordered such acts, shall, regardless of their nationality, be liable to be tried by any party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. They may also be handed over by the latter for trial by any other party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] able to prosecute effectively. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-6, § 52.
The manual also provides:
At the request of a party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted in a manner to be decided between the interested parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Geneva Conventions. If a violation is established, parties to the conflict must put an end to it and punish those responsible with the least possible delay. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-3, § 18.
The manual further states: “States have the obligation to repress grave breaches (i.e., ensure perpetrators are accused and tried) and to take measures necessary to suppress (i.e., bring to an end) all other violations.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 11.
In addition, the manual states:
37. The Criminal Code of Canada contains several provisions that allow Canadian courts to assume jurisdiction over and try alleged war criminals in a wide variety of circumstances.
38. Any state into whose hands a person who has allegedly committed a grave breach falls is entitled to institute criminal proceedings, even though that state was neutral during the conflict in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. Since 1945, it has been generally accepted that if a state is unwilling to institute its own proceedings, it may hand the person over to a claimant state on presentation of prima facie evidence that the alleged offender has committed the offence in question. …
43. The four Geneva Conventions obligate the parties thereto to enact such legislation as may be necessary to provide effective sanctions for persons committing or ordering any of the acts which would constitute grave breaches under the Conventions. They also provide that the parties will take the measures necessary to suppress any violation of the Conventions not amounting to grave breaches. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, pp. 16-5 and 16-6, §§ 37–38 and 43.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states:
It is essential that any alleged breaches of these rules [of the Code of Conduct] and the Law of Armed Conflict be investigated rapidly in as impartial a manner as possible. An impartial investigation will not only assist in bringing violators to justice, thereby maintaining discipline, but will also provide the best opportunity to clear anyone who has not acted improperly. In most cases that investigation will be carried out by the military police or National Investigation Service. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 3.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs):
1014. Responsibility
1. The responsibility for the treatment of PWs rests upon the Detaining Power. Failure to properly care for PWs may make that power liable to pay compensation, while the individuals responsible for such ill-treatment or for allowing it to occur, are liable to be tried as war criminals.
1038. Breaches of PW Convention
1. Parties to the conflict shall take such measures as may be necessary to suppress and punish all breaches of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. If a breach amounts to a grave breach all persons responsible therefore, or having ordered such acts, shall, regardless of nationality, be liable to be tried by any party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. They may also be handed over by the latter for trial by any other party to [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] able to prosecute effectively. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1014 and 1038.
In its chapter entitled “Preventative and enforcement measures and the role of protecting powers”, the manual states:
At the request of a party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted in a manner to be decided between the interested parties, concerning any alleged violation of the Geneva Conventions. If a violation is established, parties to the conflict must put an end to it and punish those responsible with the least possible delay. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1508.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states:
1607. Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions
3. States have the obligation to repress grave breaches (i.e., ensure perpetrators are accused and tried) and to take measures necessary to suppress (i.e., bring to an end) all other violations.
1616. Canadian law
2. The Criminal Code of Canada contains several provisions that allow Canadian courts to assume jurisdiction over and try alleged war criminals in a wide variety of circumstances …
1617. International law
1. Any state into whose hands a person who has allegedly committed a grave breach falls is entitled to institute criminal proceedings, even though that state was neutral during the conflict in which the offence was alleged to have been committed. Since 1945, it has been generally accepted that if a state is unwilling to institute its own proceedings, it may hand the person over to a claimant state on presentation of prima facie evidence that the alleged offender has committed the offence in question.
6. The four Geneva Conventions obligate the parties thereto to enact such legislation as may be necessary to provide effective sanctions for persons committing or ordering any of the acts which would constitute grave breaches under the Conventions. They also provide that the parties will take the measures necessary to suppress any violation of the Conventions not amounting to grave breaches. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1607.3, 1616.2 and 1617.1 and 6.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
1725. Breaches of Protocol II
1. When [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] was adopted, states refused to make violations of its provisions regarding criminal offences. Certain nations were reluctant to allow other states to interfere in their internal affairs by way of trials for war crimes alleged to have taken place in their national territory.
2. Today, however, many provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] are nevertheless recognized under customary International Law as prohibitions that entail individual criminal responsibility when breaches are committed during internal armed conflicts.
3. Violations of many provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] committed by individual members of a party to an internal conflict are thus criminal offences under International Law. Such crimes may be tried by international tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1725.
Canada
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states:
All four [1949 Geneva Conventions] and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] impose an obligation on all parties to search for and bring to trial those who have committed any grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
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, § 103.1.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct After Capture Manual (2004) states:
When it appears that violations of the LOAC or other international agreements or laws have been perpetrated against detainees or PWs [prisoners of war] whilst held by a detaining power, the recovery team shall also include MP [Military Police] investigators who will coordinate the collection of physical evidence and victim statements. MP assisted by appropriate legal advisors, shall coordinate and facilitate the participation of any other international investigative authority as may be required. 
Canada, The Code of Conduct After Capture for the Canadian Forces, B-GJ-005-110/FP-010, National Defence Headquarters, 28 October 2004, § 504.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
It is essential that any alleged breaches of these rules [of the Code of Conduct] and the Law of Armed Conflict be investigated rapidly in as impartial a manner as possible. An impartial investigation will not only assist in bringing violators to justice, thereby maintaining discipline, but will also provide the best opportunity to clear anyone who has not acted improperly. In most cases that investigation will be carried out by the military police or National Investigation Service. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 11, § 3.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “States are under an obligation to repress war crimes.” 
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. 109.
The manual further states:
- When faced with a grave breach of IHL … a State must ensure the penal repression of the perpetrator of that breach. This may be done in two ways:
- By applying sanctions to the breach by its own court (obligation of repression);
- By taking steps to ensure that the perpetrator of the breach is brought before a foreign or international court.
- When dealing with a breach of IHL that is not classified as “grave”, a State may take the measures necessary to put an end to that breach.
Those measures may include penal, disciplinary, statutory or administrative sanctions. 
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. 109.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) provides: “War crimes shall be repudiated and sanctioned by the international community, by States through their legislation and by civil society.” 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 31.
The manual specifies that, before conflicts, States are obliged “to establish in national legislation, especially in criminal law, rules which define and punish crimes … against IHL”. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 27.
The manual further states: “Violations committed by officials [of the State or] … soldiers … shall be sanctioned in compliance with the disciplinary, administrative and criminal legislation of the State.” 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 36.
According to the manual, this is also the case for violations committed by members of organized armed groups. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 37.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
Lesson 4. Breaches and repression of violations of IHL
The texts on the law of war distinguish two categories of breaches in the case of violations of the rules of IHL:
- Grave violations or grave breaches, called war crimes;
- Other violations.
I. Grave violations
I.1 Definition
They are enumerated by the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, as well as by the Ivorian Penal Code.
I.2 Sanctions
The State is under the obligation to search and to try the perpetrators of these grave violations. To do this, it can act in two ways:
- bring the perpetrator before its own courts,
- bring the perpetrator before an international jurisdiction.
These sanctions can be disciplinary, administrative, statutory and/or penal.
In Côte d’Ivoire, the Penal Code has provided for the repression of certain violations …
II. Other violations
II.1 Definition
Regarded as other violations are those violations which are not determined as grave violations. The majority of these violations are contained in the service and general discipline regulations.
Example: the fact of exercising light violence against an enemy prisoner.
II.2 Sanctions
These violations are punished in conformity with the military regulations. These disciplinary sanctions can range from a warning to the dismissal of the person concerned. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 29–30.
In Book II (Instruction of non-commissioned officers and officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
II.2.1. Repression of grave violations
The grave violations of IHL can be repressed on the national level as well as on the international level.
On the national level, these grave breaches of IHL are judged by:
- the military tribunal,
- the civilian courts. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 30.
In Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
Lesson 3. Obligations and responsibilities
The authors of the Conventions were conscious of the fact that there can be no respect for the law of armed conflicts [LOAC] without knowledge of the rules of that law. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In fact, it still needs the will of the authority to respect these rules, to ensure their respect and to punish perpetrators of grave violations.
I. Obligations
The law of armed conflicts contains a series of obligations to which States have subscribed by its ratification. They are mainly:
- the obligation to punish violations of the LOAC.
II. Obligation to punish
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I lay down clearly the responsibility of States in the area of repression …
“The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall repress grave breaches, and take measures necessary to suppress all other breaches, of the Conventions [or] of this Protocol which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so.”
Confronted with a grave breach of the law of armed conflicts, a State must therefore ensure the penal repression of the perpetrator of that breach:
- by punishing the infraction in its own courts; or
- by ensuring that the perpetrator of the breach is transferred to a foreign or international jurisdiction.
If it is a breach of the LOAC not qualified as grave, the State must take all measures necessary for the suppression of that breach. These measures can comprise sanctions of a penal, disciplinary, statutory or administrative nature.
Lesson 4. Violations and repression
II. Repression of breaches
II.1. National repression
According to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, a certain number of particularly grave violations must be criminally prosecuted.
In the presence of an alleged grave breach of the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol I, a criminal prosecution must obligatorily be started against the suspect, unless he is handed over to a third State which opens an investigation. It is up to the States to provide for criminal or disciplinary consequences equally for the violation of other provisions of international humanitarian law.
Since criminal prosecution can only be undertaken if national law provides a sanction for the act committed, has determined the punishment and the procedure, it is indispensable that rules implementing international humanitarian law be incorporated into the national legislation. This is an obligation of each State party.
In order to fulfil the obligation to punish the perpetrators of violations of international humanitarian law, States can use different legislative techniques:
- create specific repression by promulgating new legislation which for each grave breach of IHL fixes a specific penalty;
- provide a single sanction for war crimes, i.e. a minimum and a maximum between which the judge is free to assess the punishment;
- proceed by analogy, i.e. by searching for each grave breach of the LOAC the corresponding breach – and therefore the punishment provided – in internal law. In certain cases, the level of the punishment risks being inadequate in relation to the extent of the crime (e.g. number of victims). On the other hand, certain breaches are specific to the state of war and have nothing corresponding in ordinary internal law (e.g. deportation of a population, attacks on cultural property, etc.).
Grave breaches of international humanitarian law need to be prosecuted not only by the detaining power, but by each State in the power of which the presumed culprit finds himself. One therefore speaks of universal jurisdiction. States must therefore give mutual legal assistance, for example by extraditing an accused if a State renounces criminal prosecution, or by transmitting means of evidence.
II.3. Specifics on repression
II.3.1. Universal competence of tribunals
States are bound to search and punish grave breaches, without regard to the nationality of the perpetrators (nor the victims), nor to the place where the breach was committed. 
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, pp. 35–37 and 46–48; see also 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. 65.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states that “violating the rules [of IHL] [turns members of Djibouti’s military into] war criminals who may be brought before military tribunals.” 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 33.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states:
Means of repression
These are means which implement the obligation of parties to a conflict to prevent and stop any violation [of IHL]. Concerning mechanisms of repression, the following are stressed in particular:
- the obligation to repress through national tribunals grave breaches considered to be war crimes. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 14.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) reminds soldiers that they “may be tried and convicted for crimes committed in combat even after they have left the service. Furthermore, criminal acts may make your mission harder and thereby endanger your life.” 
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. 12.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states: “In the event of a clearly established violation of the law of armed conflict, the aggrieved State may: … punish individual offenders either during the conflict or upon cessation of hostilities”. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.
The manual adds:
Belligerent States have the obligation, under international law, to punish their own nationals, whether members of the armed forces or civilians, who commit war crimes. International law also provides that belligerent States have the right to punish enemy armed forces personnel and enemy civilians who fall under their control for such offences. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.5.
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides: “Grave breaches of the law of war are war crimes which must be investigated, brought before each party’s courts and punished under criminal law.” 
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, § 3.4.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), in a part dealing with “grave breaches of the rules of the law of armed conflict”, states:
On the criminal level, persons charged with [grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] may be prosecuted before French judicial courts, but also before foreign courts or international criminal courts having jurisdiction over war crimes: today this means the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda for the crimes committed solely on the occasion of these two conflicts; tomorrow, this will mean … the International Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction over all war crimes and crimes against humanity in case of the failure of national tribunals. 
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. 7.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Each member of the armed forces who has violated the rules of international humanitarian law must be aware of the fact that he can be prosecuted according to penal or disciplinary provisions.” 
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, § 1207.
The manual refers to Articles 49 and 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Articles 50 and 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Articles 129 and 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, Articles 146 and 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and Article 85 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and states: “The four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I oblige the contracting parties to make grave breaches of the protective provisions liable to punishment and to take all suitable measures to ensure compliance with the Conventions.” 
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, § 1208.
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) provides: “Under public international law, every State has the duty to hold responsible, in a criminal and in a disciplinary way, the members even of its own armed forces who have violated the rules of international humanitarian law.” 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, § 803.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
The rules of warfare are binding upon every soldier in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]. The rules of military jurisdiction contain several provisions that define breaches of the rules of warfare as military offences that can be prosecuted in a court of law. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 11.
The manual also states: “The State of Israel will not lend a hand to the commission of war crimes by Israelis and will bring to trial in Israel any Israeli who might, Heaven forbid, have committed a war crime.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 42.
The manual further states:
The State of Israel does not perpetrate war crimes and its acts are covered by routine legal advice. If any Israeli soldier commits any of the crimes addressed by the [1998 ICC] Statute, Israel itself will put him on trial. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 47.
In addition, the manual states: “Commanding officers and men may stand trial if, in breach of their obligations, they have been involved in war crimes.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 49.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
War crimes … are punished by the military penal code applicable in times of war, and international cooperation for the pursuit, arrest, extradition and punishment of the persons who have allegedly committed [such crimes] is established. 
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, § 86.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “The law of war contains provisions that expressly require States to punish persons under its authority who are responsible for unlawful acts.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 383.
Nepal
Nepal’s IHL and IHRL Integration Order (2008) states that Nepal’s army “always follow[s] a policy of Zero Tolerance against perpetrators of [violations of] human rights and international humanitarian law”. 
Nepal, IHL and IHRL Integration Order for the Nepalese Army, Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters Kathmandu, File Ref. 14644/9/A/064/65/22/874, 22 February 2008, § 2.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands refers to Article 86 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, noting the duty to repress grave breaches and to take measures necessary to suppress all other breaches which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. IX-3/IX-6.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides: “Hostile persons who have committed a war crime and fall into the hands of [one’s] own troops must be tried.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-45.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands provides:
Section 4 - War crimes
1132. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, which support States in establishing penal provisions to punish offenders against the rules of the law of war, also impose an obligation on States to prosecute violations and bring them to trial. The treaties of the law of war recognize the distinction between serious violations and other infringements of the obligations in the conventions. Serious breaches must be expressly threatened with punishment. No obligation applies to other infringements, i.e., more general offences against the laws and customs of war, but they may also be made punishable without an obligation to do so. This has now taken place in the Netherlands, in the form of the Act on the Criminal Law of War. Account is often taken of this distinction when determining the punishment. Of course, serious violations are breaches of the fundamental rules of the humanitarian law of war. Both the Geneva Conventions and AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I] define serious violations. Conventions enacted later (the Cultural Property Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention) also require States to make breaches of their provisions punishable.
1135. The parties to the conflict should take action against breaches of the humanitarian law of war and take measures to prevent other breaches.
It is expressly stated also that grave breaches deriving from failure to act, where an obligation to act existed, must be penalized.
Section 5 - International Criminal Offences Act
1137. The Dutch International Criminal Offences Act (Wet internationale misdrijven – WIM) … is a “broad” act which penalizes “the most serious crimes which fill the whole international community with concern”. It then deals with the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity (including torture, Article 4) and war crimes. Article 5 gives detailed descriptions of war crimes in an international armed conflict, Article 6 covers those in an internal armed conflict, while Article 7 contains a “safety-net provision” which makes no distinction concerning the nature of the armed conflict: this ensures that war crimes not specifically described do not go unpunished. International law not only prohibits the committing of international crimes, but also requires States to institute and maintain an effective system of exercising legal power against such crimes. The International Criminal Offences Act establishes a wide extraterritorial jurisdiction for the Dutch courts with regard to such crimes. This is partly based on the principle of universality … The International Criminal Offences Act is applicable under normal circumstances. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 1132, 1135 and 1137.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states:
The [1949 Geneva] Conventions make one further departure of significance. For the first time they provide in treaty form a clear obligation upon States to punish what the Conventions describe as “grave breaches”, even if those States are not parties to the conflict, the offenders and the victims not their nationals, and even though the offences were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State concerned. In other words, the Conventions have introduced the concept of universal jurisdiction in so far as grave breaches are concerned, and if the State in question is unwilling to try an offender found within its territory, it is obliged to hand him over for trial to any party to the Convention making out a prima facie case. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 117.5.
The manual also notes:
In the event of “any alleged violations” of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions an enquiry must be instituted at the request of a Party to the conflict. If a violation be established, the Parties to the conflict must put an end to it and punish it with the least possible delay. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1609.
The manual further provides:
The four [1949] Geneva Conventions require the parties to them to enact such legislation as may be necessary to provide effective sanctions for persons committing or ordering any of the acts which would constitute grave breaches under the Conventions. They also provide that the parties will take the measures necessary to suppress any violation of the Convention[s] not amounting to grave breaches. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1711.1 and 1711.4.
The manual adds: “Any grave breach described as such in the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] shall be an indictable offence.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1712.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) recalls:
The High Contracting Parties [to the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and the parties to the conflict shall repress breaches, and take measures necessary to suppress all other breaches of the [1949 Geneva] conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 9, § 9e.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states: “The Geneva Conventions stipulate that a contracting party shall enact all necessary legislation to prohibit acts which contravene their provisions.” 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 7.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Measures and mechanisms to deal with violations are based on the obligation of the parties to a conflict to ensure that violations of international humanitarian law do not go unpunished and to prosecute those responsible in accordance with fair trial standards (due process). This is achieved by implementing the following measures:
(1) Repress and punish international war crimes. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 10.c.(1).
The manual also states: “States have the duty to put an end to any breach of the provisions of international humanitarian law and to prosecute and punish those responsible.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 83.f.
The manual further states: “The parties to the conflict must ensure that violations of international humanitarian law are punished by means of disciplinary or penal sanctions.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 101.c.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
Measures and mechanisms to deal with violations are based on the obligation of the parties to a conflict to ensure that violations of international humanitarian law do not go unpunished and to prosecute those responsible in accordance with fair trial standards (due process). This is achieved by implementing the following measures:
(1) Repress and punish international war crimes. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 10(c)(1), p. 222.
The manual further states: “The parties to the conflict must ensure that violations of international humanitarian law are punished by means of disciplinary or penal sanctions.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 92(c), p. 294.
Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines provides:
All human rights-related incidents allegedly committed by members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] in the course of security/police operations shall be immediately investigated and if evidence warrants, charges shall be filed in the proper courts. Reports of investigation as well as actions taken shall be submitted to GHQ or PNP HQs fifteen (15) days after receipt of information about the alleged human rights violation. [The] same shall be forwarded to the Department of National Defense or Department of Interior and Local Government. 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2(b)(1).
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) provides that persons who have committed a grave breach of IHL “shall be tried or extradited”. 
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 193, § 4.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states with regard to internal armed conflict:
Penal prosecution of persons who have committed war and other crimes during an armed conflict shall be exercised on the basis of Russian legislation via investigation and conviction pronounced by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. 
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, § 86.
Russian Federation
The Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (2007) provides:
General Obligations of Commanders (Superiors)
77. … In the course of carrying out combat missions by a military unit, the commander (superior) guided by requirements of field manuals, must take measures aimed at respecting IHL rules and bring to disciplinary responsibility those guilty of breaching them. In the event of discovering constituent elements of a criminal offence in the actions (omissions) of his subordinates, the commander of the unit shall institute criminal proceedings, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. 
Russian Federation, Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Ustav vnutrennei sluzhbi vooruzhennikh sil Rossiskoi Federacii), approved by Decree No. 1495 of the President of the Russian Federation, 10 November 2007, § 77.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) states:
IHL principles are the best mankind can get in armed conflict situations … Irrespective of rank, all members of the [Republic of Sierra Leone armed forces] must adhere to these rules religiously to avert prosecution for war crimes at the newly instituted Court Martial. 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, “Introduction” (unnumbered page).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Signatory States [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] are required to treat as criminals under domestic law anyone who commits or orders a grave breach [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions].” 
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, § 35.
The manual further states:
Grave breaches of the law of war are regarded as war crimes. They shall be repressed by penal sanctions …
Grave breaches are indictable offence[s] under Section 7 of the Geneva Conventions Act, RSA, 1957. South Africa is obliged to search out and prosecute or extradite those who have committed a grave breach. For all breaches (i.e. violations of the law of war), South Africa has an obligation to take steps to ensure that the offences do not happen again … If breaches went unpunished, it would signify the degradation of human values and the regression of the entire concept of humanity. 
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, §§ 41 and 42.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “South Africa is obliged to search out and prosecute or extradite those who have committed a grave breach [of the law of armed conflict].” 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 57.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I impose on States parties the obligation to adopt in their domestic legislation all the legislative measures necessary to determine adequate penal sanctions against those who commit, or order to be committed, any kind of grave breaches. 
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, § 11.8.b.(1); see also § 1.1.d.(6).
The manual further states: “Spain has complied with the obligation undertaken when ratifying the Geneva Conventions and dedicated Title II of Volume II of the Military Criminal Code to categorize and sanction the offences against the laws and customs of war.” 
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, § 11.8.b.(1)
The manual also provides:
States have the obligation to search for persons accused of having committed, or having ordered to be committed, grave breaches, being obliged to make them appear before their own tribunals, regardless of their nationality. They can also agree to the extradition of those persons in order for them to be judged by other States, in accordance with the legal obligations which regulate the said extradition.
With regard to breaches that are not of a grave nature, the necessary measures must be taken for their immediate cessation. 
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, §§ 11.8.b.(1) and 11.8.b.(2).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “The law of armed conflict provides that governments must take all necessary legislative measures to establish the penal and disciplinary sanctions to be applied to those who commit or order others to commit violations of the laws and customs of war.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 1.1.d.(6).
The manual further states:
The most effective instrument for enforcing the law of armed conflict is the obligation binding on States party to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 to prosecute offences that they define as grave breaches. To this end, they must establish appropriate criminal sanctions in general and military codes. Spain fulfils this obligation by criminalizing such breaches in … the 1985 Military Penal Code (crimes against the laws and customs of war) and … the 1995 Penal Code (crimes against protected persons and property in armed conflicts).
In the case of offences that are not classed as grave breaches, measures must be adopted immediately to suppress them.
Spanish domestic legislation, increasing the criminal protection of the victims of armed conflict, criminalizes simple infringements or acts contrary to the provisions of the Conventions in relation to the conduct of hostilities and the protection of the victims of armed conflict and cultural property. However, minor infringements can be treated as military disciplinary offences. 
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, § 11.7.a.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
It is incumbent upon parties to the Conventions to enact legislation necessary to apply effective sanctions to persons committing, or ordering to be committed, breaches of the Conventions. Each State is obliged to search for persons accused of committing or ordering a grave breach and shall bring them, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. A permitted alternative is to hand over the wanted person to another contracting party, provided that this state has an interest in punishing the breach and has made out a prima facie case.
For breaches not considered as grave, the contracting parties’ obligations are limited to taking any steps needed to ensure that the transgressions cease. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.2, pp. 93 and 94.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides:
1. Violations of the laws and customs of war must be punished. Those responsible may be brought either before the courts of their own country or before the courts of the injured State, or before an international tribunal.
2. Each Contracting Party is also bound to search for and prosecute in its own courts persons who have committed grave breaches of the provisions of the law of nations in time of war. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 198.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
152 War crimes, i.e. violations of the international law of armed conflict, must in serious cases be reported to the investigating military authorities by the competent superior. Sanctions are the responsibility of the military justice system. The competent commander is responsible for disciplinary sanctions for minor offences.
17 Sanctions for violations of the international law of armed conflict
17.1 General provisions
234 Violations of the international law of armed conflict are punished according to the provisions of the Swiss Penal Code or the Military Criminal Code.
238 The Swiss judicial authorities are required to open a criminal procedure against any Swiss citizen or foreign person where the suspect is present in or has a close connection with Switzerland, regardless of whether the offence has taken place in Switzerland or abroad (for the precise rules on the prosecution of war crimes committed by foreign nationals outside Switzerland, see Art. 9 of the Military Criminal Code). 
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, §§ 152, 234 and 238.
[emphasis in original]
Uganda
Uganda’s LOAC Dissemination Directive (2006) provides: “All incidents of possible, suspected or alleged violations of IHL are promptly reported, thoroughly investigated and remedied by corrective measures.” 
Uganda, Chief of Defence Forces Directive: Dissemination of the Law of Armed Conflict, Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), Chief of Defence Forces, 5 May 2006.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Criminal prosecution of persons who committed war crimes and other offences in time of a non-international armed conflict shall be done in accordance with Ukraine’s legislation by means of pre-trial investigation and trial. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.4.17.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) notes:
The [1907 Hague Regulations] themselves … provide that the perpetrators of the particular offences of seizure, damage or wilful destruction of churches, hospitals, schools, museums, historic monuments, works of art, etc., shall be prosecuted. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 618.
The manual also states:
In the case of “any alleged violations” of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions an inquiry must be instituted at the request of a party to the conflict. If a violation be established, the parties to the conflict must put an end to it and punish it with the least possible delay. These provisions form an important method of ensuring that the laws of war are observed by belligerents. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 621.
The manual further states:
All parties to the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions undertook to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing or ordering to be committed any of the “grave breaches” of the Conventions. Parties are also bound to search for persons alleged to have committed, or ordered, “grave breaches”, and regardless of their nationality, to bring them to trial in their own courts. If a party so prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, it may hand such persons over for trial to another State concerned which is a party to the Conventions, provided that that other State has made out a prima facie case against those persons. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 639.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
14.16. In some circumstances, members of a PSO [peace support operations] force may be expressly or impliedly charged with certain responsibilities for ensuring the compliance of others with the law of armed conflict. For example, they may have a responsibility to intervene so far as feasible to prevent the commission of grave breaches or other war crimes or to arrest persons indicted for such offences. In addition, there is a duty on states party to Additional Protocol I to co-operate with the United Nations in response to serious violations of the law of armed conflict.
16.1. Enforcement of the law of armed conflict can involve a wide variety of measures. “Enforcement” is taken here to mean action to ensure observance of the law and also action that may be taken following alleged or actual violations. Action aimed at effective enforcement of the law can include, but is not limited to:
h. Penal and disciplinary measures, such as trials before civil courts or courts-martial or appropriate disciplinary action by commanding officers. Trials may be either within a single state or organized on an international basis.
16.1.2. Complaints of unlawful acts and omissions alleged to have been committed by individuals or by commanders are an almost inevitable feature of warfare. All sides will be striving to win the battle for public and world opinion and no state can afford to ignore this. Hostile opinion can lead to loss of political goodwill and public support and damage morale amongst the forces concerned. Failure by belligerent governments to investigate and, where appropriate, punish the alleged unlawful acts of members of their armed forces can contribute to the loss of public and world support, leading to isolation for the state involved. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 14.16, 16.1(h) and 16.1.2.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) states:
At the request of a Party to the conflict, an enquiry shall be instituted, in a manner to be decided between the interested Parties, concerning any alleged violation of the [1949 Geneva] Convention[s] … Once the violation has been established, the Parties to the conflict shall put an end to it and shall repress it with the least possible delay. 
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, § 496.
The manual adds:
The High Contracting Parties [to the 1949 Geneva Conventions] undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions …
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, … grave breaches and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case …
[These] principles … are declaratory of the obligations of belligerents under customary international law to take measures for the punishment of war crimes committed by all persons, including members of a belligerent’s own armed forces …
Commanding officers of United States troops must insure that war crimes committed by members of their forces against enemy personnel are promptly and adequately punished. 
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, §§ 506(a) and (b) and 507(b).
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states:
Domestic tribunals have the competence and, under the grave breaches articles of the Geneva Conventions, the strict obligation to punish certain violations … Ad hoc international tribunals, such as those established in Germany and Japan following World War II, did punish individuals for their personal actions violating the law of armed conflict. However, the importance of criminal responsibility … primarily relates to a state’s own efforts to enforce the law of armed conflict with respect to its own armed forces. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 10-6.
[emphasis in original]
The Pamphlet further states:
There are express obligations to search for persons alleged to have committed grave breaches, to bring them to trial or extradite them, to take all measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to the Conventions and to implement all obligations … The United States has for many years urged measures on the international scene to improve the implementation and better observance of the law of armed conflict …
Within the Geneva Conventions system, state responsibility to repress breaches is stressed, and no provision is made for international tribunals within the Conventions …
In the United States, jurisdiction is not limited to offenses against US nationals but extends to offenses against victims of other nationalities. Violations by adversary personnel, when appropriate, are tried as offenses against international law which forms part of the law of the United States. In occupied territories, trials are usually held under occupation law. Trials of such personnel have been held in regular military courts, military commissions, provost courts, military government courts, and other military tribunals of the United States, as well as in international tribunals. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 15–2(b), 15-3(a) and 15-4(a).
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) reminds soldiers that they “may be tried and convicted for crimes committed in combat even after they have left the service. Furthermore, criminal acts may make your mission harder and thereby endanger your life.” 
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. 27.
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) notes:
Nearly all nations have signed the Geneva Conventions and have agreed in doing so to search out, to bring to trial, and to punish all persons who commit a grave breach of the conventions. You may be tried and convicted even after leaving the service. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 13.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides: “In the event of a clearly established violation of the law of armed conflict, the aggrieved nation may: … punish individual offenders either during the conflict or upon cessation of hostilities.” 
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.
(emphasis in original)
The Handbook further states:
Belligerents have the obligation under international law to punish their own nationals, whether members of the armed forces or civilians, who commit war crimes. International law also provides that belligerents have the right to punish enemy armed forces personnel and enemy civilians who fall under their control for such offenses. 
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), § 6.2.5.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
Alleged violations of the law of armed conflict, whether committed by or against U.S., allied, or enemy personnel, are to be reported promptly through appropriate command channels. War crimes alleged to be committed by U.S. personnel or its allies, must be investigated thoroughly, and where appropriate, remedied by corrective action. War crimes committed by enemy personnel will be reviewed for appropriate responsive action. 
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, § 6.1.2.1.
The Handbook also states:
States are obligated under international law to punish their own nationals, whether members of the armed forces or civilians, who commit war crimes. International law also provides that States have the right to punish enemy armed forces personnel and enemy civilians who fall under their control for such offenses
The Geneva Conventions … place duties on States to search for persons alleged to have committed grave breaches, bring them to trial, and punish them if found guilty. This duty exists regardless of the nationality of the offender and includes the right to punish enemy armed forces personnel and enemy civilians. For violations of the Conventions that do not rise to the level of a grave breach, States are obligated to take measures necessary to suppress them. 
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, § 6.2.6.
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states:
All DOD [Department of Defense] personnel (military and civilian personnel) and contractor employees who obtain information about a “reportable incident” as set forth in DODD [Department Defense Directive] 2311.01E, will immediately report the incident through their chain of command or supervision. A “reportable incident” is “a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war, for which there is credible information, or conduct during military operations other than war that would constitute a violation of the law of war if it occurred during an armed conflict.” Reports also may be made through other channels, such as the military police (MP), a judge advocate, or an inspector general, who will then forward a report through the appropriate chain of command. Reportable incidents should be investigated, and where appropriate, remedied by disciplinary or administrative action. On-scene commanders will ensure that measures are taken to preserve evidence of alleged violations pending investigation by U.S., coalition, allied, or other appropriate authorities. (DODD 2311.01E, DOD Law of War Program, May 9, 2006, paragraph 4.5.). 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-2.
In a chapter on “Roles and Responsibilities”, the manual states:
7. Commander, Detainee Operations
The commander, detainee operations (CDO) is typically responsible for all detention facility and interrogation operations in the joint operations area (JOA) … The CDO will have the following responsibilities:
e. … [R]eport immediately all allegations of maltreatment and/or abuse of detainees through the designated command channels, and investigate allegations promptly and thoroughly.
8. Detention Facility Commander
The DFC is the commander responsible for the execution of all detention facility operations … A DFC’s responsibilities normally include the following:
e. Ensuring that all allegations of maltreatment of detainees are immediately reported through the appropriate command channels.
9. Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center Commander
The JIDC commander and/or chief is the officer responsible to the CDO for all matters relating to interrogation, intelligence collection and reporting, and interaction with other agencies involved in the intelligence and/or evidence gathering process. The JIDC commander should be an intelligence officer and is normally responsible for the following:
h. Ensuring that all allegations of maltreatment of detainees are immediately reported through the appropriate command channels. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. II-3–II-6.
The manual quotes a statement by the US President to the UN on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, 26 June 2004: “Our Armed Forces are committed to complying with … [the 1949 Geneva Conventions] and to holding accountable those in our military who do not.” 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-1.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) provides:
The parties to a conflict have a duty to prevent violations of the laws of war by all available means and to call to account and punish perpetrators, regardless of their nationality. States are obliged, in peace time, to provide in their legislation that serious violations of the laws of war are crimes. 
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, § 18.
The manual also states:
Parties to a conflict are authorized and obliged to determine the criminal responsibility of members of their own or enemy armed forces, that is, their own or enemy citizens who ordered the commission or committed war crimes or other serious violations of the laws 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, § 32.
The manual further states:
Persons who commit a war crime or other serious violations of the laws of war shall be brought to justice before their own national courts or, if they fall into enemy hands, before his courts. The perpetrators of such criminal acts may also be brought to justice before an international court if such court is established. 
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, § 20.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on the Creation of a National Committee to Investigate War Crimes Committed during the War in the South Atlantic (1995) establishes
within the Ministry of National Defence the National Committee to investigate War Crimes which aims at clarifying the facts related to the possible commission of war crimes during the period of the belligerent incidents which occurred in the South Atlantic between the months of April and June of [1982]. 
Argentina, Law on the Creation of a National Committee to Investigate War Crimes Committed during the War in the South Atlantic, 1995, Article 1.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute (2006) states:
Article 2. … The conduct described in articles 6, 7, 8 and 70 of the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute, articles concerning genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and offences against the administration of justice, respectively], as well as the offences and crimes that may eventually fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, will be punishable for the Argentine Republic in accordance with the present law.
Article 4. When a person suspected of committing one of the crimes mentioned in this law is present in the territory of the Argentine Republic or in any place under its jurisdiction, and such person is not extradited nor surrendered to the International Criminal Court, the Argentine Republic will take all necessary measures to exercise its jurisdiction regarding such crime. 
Argentina, Law on the Implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute, 2006, Articles 2 and 4.
Armenia
In a chapter entitled “Crimes against the peace and security of mankind”, Armenia’s Penal Code (2003) provides for the punishment of certain acts, committed during armed conflicts, which violate the laws and customs of war, including “serious breaches of international humanitarian law during armed conflict”, crimes against humanity and genocide. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Articles 383, 386–387 and 390–397.
Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945), as amended in 2001, gives Australian courts jurisdiction over individuals accused of war crimes committed during the Second World War. The Act defines a war crime as a serious crime committed “in the course of hostilities in a war”, “in the course of an occupation”, “in pursuing a policy associated with the conduct of a war or with an occupation” or “on behalf of, or in the interests of, a power conducting a war or engaged in an occupation”. War is defined as
a) a war, whether declared or not;
b) any other armed conflict between countries; or
c) a civil war or similar armed conflict (whether or not involving Australia or a country allied or associated with Australia) in so far as it occurred in Europe in the period beginning on 1 September 1939 and ending on 8 May 1945. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, as amended in 2001, Sections 5, 7 and 9.
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides for the punishment of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I. It states:
(1) A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I is guilty of an indictable offence.
(3) This section applies to persons regardless of their nationality or citizenship. 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1) and (3).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act (1995).
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) contains a list of acts qualified as: “Genocide” (Sections 268.3–268.7); “Crimes against humanity” (Sections 268.8–268.23); “War crimes that are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions” (Sections 268.24–268.34); “Other serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict” (Sections 268.35–268.68); “War crimes that are serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and are committed in the course of an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict” (Sections 268.69–268.76); “War crimes that are other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict” (Sections 268.77–268.94); and “War crimes that are grave breaches of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions” (Sections 268.95–268.101). The Act includes the penalty to be imposed by Australian courts for each of these crimes. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Sections 268.3–268.101.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995), which establishes disciplinary, administrative and criminal liability, is applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Articles 8 and 31.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides for punishment, inter alia, in case of war crimes (Article 57). In the chapter entitled “War crimes”, the Code contains further provisions criminalizing: the use of “mercenaries” (Article 114); “violations of [the] laws and customs of war” (Article 115); “violations of the norms of international humanitarian law in time of armed conflict” (Article 116); “negligence or giving criminal orders in time of armed conflict” (Article 117); “pillage” (Article 118); and “abuse of protected signs” (Article 119). 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Articles 57 and 114–119.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s Constitution (1972), as amended to 2011, states:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no law nor any provision thereof providing for [the] detention, prosecution or punishment of any person, who is a member of any armed or defence or auxiliary forces or any individual, group of individuals or organisation or who is a prisoner of war, for … war crimes and other crimes under international law shall be deemed void or unlawful, or ever to have become void or unlawful, on the ground that such law or provision of any such law is inconsistent with, or repugnant to, any of the provisions of this Constitution. 
Bangladesh, Constitution, 1972, as amended to 2011, Article 47(3).
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) provides:
(1) A Tribunal shall have the power to try and punish any person irrespective of his nationality who, being a member of any armed, defence or auxiliary forces commits or has committed in the territory of Bangladesh, whether before or after the commencement of this act, any of the following crimes.
(2) The following acts or any of them are crimes within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility, namely: –
(a) Crimes against Humanity …
(b) Crimes against Peace …
(c) Genocide …
(d) War Crimes …
(e) Violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 …
(f) Any other crimes under international law;
(g) Attempt, abetment or conspiracy to commit any such crimes;
(h) Complicity in or failure to prevent commission of any such crimes. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3.
Barbados
The Geneva Conventions Act (1980) of Barbados provides:
(1) A grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 that would, if committed in Barbados, be an offence under any law of Barbados, constitutes an offence under that law when committed outside Barbados.
(2) … A person who commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 … may be tried and punished by any court in Barbados that has jurisdiction in respect of similar offences in Barbados as if the grave breach had been committed in Barbados. 
Barbados, Geneva Conventions Act, 1980, Section 3(1)–(2).
Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999), in a chapter entitled “War crimes and other violations of the laws and customs of war”, provides, inter alia, for the punishment of specified acts, such as: “mercenary activities” (Article 133); “use of weapons of mass destruction” (Article 134); “violations of the laws and customs of war” (Article 135); “criminal offences against the norms of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts” (Article 136); or “abuse of signs protected by international treaties” (Article 138). 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Articles 132–138.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides for the punishment of genocide and crimes against humanity. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Articles 1(1) and 1(2).
The Law further provides that acts defined as
grave breaches … which cause injury or damage, by act or omission, to persons or objects protected by the [1949 Geneva Conventions] and by Protocols I and II additional to those Conventions … shall … constitute crimes under international law and be punishable in accordance with the provisions of the present Act. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3).
The Law lists such grave breaches, stating, however, that this list is “without prejudice to the criminal provisions applicable to other breaches of the Conventions referred to in the present Act and without prejudice to criminal provisions applicable to breaches committed out of negligence”. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3).
In addition, the Law provides:
Belgian courts shall be competent to deal with breaches provided for in the present Act, irrespective of where such breaches have been committed.
In respect of breaches committed abroad by a Belgian national against a foreigner, no filing of complaint by the foreigner or his family or official notice by the authority of the country in which the breach was committed shall be required. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 7.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998) contains provisions regarding the punishment of certain acts, some of them committed “in time of war or armed conflict”, such as: “war crimes against civilians” (Article 154); “war crimes against the wounded and sick” (Article 155); “war crimes against prisoners of war” (Article 156); “organizing a group and instigating the commission of genocide and war crimes” (Article 157); “unlawful killing or wounding of the enemy” (Article 158); “marauding” (Article 159); “using forbidden means of warfare” (Article 160); “violating the protection granted to bearers of flags of truce” (Article 161); “cruel treatment of the wounded, sick and prisoners of war” (Article 163); “destruction of cultural and historical monuments” (Article 164); and “misuse of international emblems” (Article 166). 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Articles 154–161 and 163–166.
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provisions. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Articles 433–445.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) provides for the punishment of various acts committed by persons:
… who planned, instigated, ordered, perpetrated or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a criminal offence referred to in Articles 171 (Genocide), 172 (Crimes against Humanity), 173 (War Crimes against Civilians), 174 (War Crimes against the Wounded and Sick), 175 (War Crimes against Prisoners of War), 177 (Unlawful Killing or Wounding of the Enemy), 178 (Marauding the Killed and Wounded at the Battlefield) and 179 (Violating the Laws and Practices of Warfare) of this Code. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 180(1); see also Article 179(1).
The Criminal Code also states:
The criminal legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall apply to anyone who, outside of its territory, perpetrates:
c) A criminal offence which Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound to punish according to the provisions of international law and international treaties or intergovernmental agreements. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 12(c).
Botswana
Botswana’s Geneva Conventions Act (1970) provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Botswana, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, any such grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions as is referred to in the following articles respectively of those conventions, that is to say [Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] shall be guilty of an offence and [be punished].
(2) In the case of an offence under this section [i.e. a grave breach in the meaning of Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] committed outside Botswana, a person may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished therefor in any place in Botswana as if the offence had been committed in that place. 
Botswana, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 3(1) and (2).
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, provides for the punishment of a list of specified acts entitled “Crimes against the laws and customs of waging war”. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended in 1999, Articles 410–415.
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
The present law has the objective of integrating into Burundian legislation the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and to organize the procedure of prosecution and of bringing to trial persons accused of the aforementioned crimes. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 1; see also Articles 2–5.
The Law also provides:
The crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must be the subject of an inquiry and the persons against whom clues of guilt have been collected [must be] arrested, brought before the competent courts and, if found guilty, punished in conformity with the procedure foreseen by the criminal procedure code or by other specific provisions foreseen by the law. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 21.
The Law further states:
Any person who … orders [or] instigates to commit … one of the offences proscribed by Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the present law, is culpable of the crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime, respectively, according to the modes of criminal participation as they are set out by Articles 67 to 69 of the penal code. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 5.
Burundi
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
Article 8
Any offence [including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes] committed in the territory of Burundi by Burundians or foreigners is … punishable according to the criminal law of Burundi.…
Article 10
Any crime committed abroad by a Burundian or a foreigner is, subject to conventions on extradition, punished by the criminal law of Burundi if the perpetrator is present in Burundi or if the victim has the Burundian nationality, and if the fact is punishable pursuant to the legislation of the country where it was committed.
The jurisdiction of Burundian tribunals over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes is not subject to these crimes being punishable pursuant to the legislation of the country where they were committed, nor is it subject to conventions on extradition. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Articles 8 and 10.
The Code also states:
In case of conviction for rape, torture, crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or in case of conviction for tentative or complicity regarding war crimes, crimes against humanity and crime of genocide, the courts and tribunals cannot suspend the sentence. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 125.
Cambodia
The express purpose of Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001) is to
bring to trial senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those who were responsible for crimes and serious violations of Cambodian penal law, international law and custom, and international conventions recognized by Cambodia, and which were committed during the period from April 17, 1975 to January 6, 1979. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, Article 1.
The Law therefore provides for the establishment of “Extraordinary Chambers … in the existing courts, namely the trial court, the appeals court, and the supreme court” (Article 2) in order to permit the prosecution and punishment of persons having committed “any of the crimes set forth in the 1956 Penal Code”, committed during the relevant period, such as: homicide, torture and religious persecution (Article 3); genocide (Article 4); crimes against humanity (Article 5); grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 6); destruction of cultural property during armed conflict pursuant to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property (Article 7); and crimes against internationally protected persons as set forth in the Convention on Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons (Article 8). 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, Articles 2–8.
Cambodia
According to its Article 1, the express purpose of Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended in 2004, is to:
… bring to trial senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those who were most responsible for the crimes and serious violations of Cambodian penal law, international humanitarian law and custom, and international conventions recognized by Cambodia, that were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, as amended in 2004, Article 1.
As laid down in its Article 2 new, the Law therefore provides for the establishment of:
Extraordinary Chambers … in the existing court structure, namely the trial court and the supreme court to bring to trial senior leaders of Democratic Kampuchea and those who were most responsible for the crimes and serious violations of Cambodian laws related to crimes, international humanitarian law and custom, and international conventions recognized by Cambodia, that were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, as amended in 2004, Article 2 new.
The Extraordinary Chambers are competent, provided that the acts were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979, with regard to: homicide, torture and religious persecution as set forth in Cambodia’s 1956 Penal Code (Article 3 new); genocide (Article 4); crimes against humanity (Article 5); grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 6); destruction of cultural property during armed conflict pursuant to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property (Article 7); and crimes against internationally protected persons pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Article 8). 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, as amended in 2004, Articles 3 new-8.
Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides:
(1) Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach referred to in Article 50 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention I], Article 51 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention II], Article 130 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III] Article 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] or Articles 11 or 85 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence and [is liable to punishment].
(2) Where a person is alleged to have committed an offence [in the meaning of the above], proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not the person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada and that person may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division. 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1) and (2).
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that for offences within Canada “every person is guilty of an indictable offence who commits (a) genocide; (b) a crime against humanity; or (c) a war crime”. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 4.
The Act adds that for offences outside Canada, “every person who, either before or after coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada (a) genocide, (b) a crime against humanity, or (c) a war crime is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted”. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 6.
The Act states: “War crime means an act or omission committed during an armed conflict that … constitutes a war crime according to customary international law or conventional international law applicable to armed conflicts.” It further specifies that the crimes described in Articles 6, 7 and 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law”. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Article 4(3) and (4).
Chile
Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925), under the heading “Offences against international law”, provides, inter alia, for the punishment of certain war crimes. 
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Articles 261–264.
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) contains a list of offences regarded as war crimes and also provides for the punishment of “other acts violating the law or usages of war, or acts whose cruelty or destructiveness exceeds their military necessity, forcing people to do things beyond their obligation, or acts hampering the exercise of legal rights”. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3.
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), under the heading “Crimes against persons and objects protected by international humanitarian law”, contains a list of provisions concerning the punishment of specified crimes committed “in the event and during an armed conflict”. The persons protected are: civilians, persons not taking part in the hostilities and civilians in the power of the adverse party, wounded, sick and shipwrecked placed hors de combat, combatants who have laid down their arms because of capture, surrender or any similar reason, persons considered as stateless or refugees before the beginning of the conflict, and the persons protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Articles 135–164.
Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) provides for the punishment of the authors and perpetrators of acts such as:
a) grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions …
b) other grave breaches of the laws and customs applicable to international armed conflicts in the scope established by international law;
c) grave breaches of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions …
d) and other grave breaches recognized as applicable to armed conflicts which are not of an international character, within the scope established by international law. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Articles 4, 5, 10 and 11.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands, referring to Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and Articles 11(4) and 85(2), (3) and (4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, provides:
(1) Any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the Conventions or of the First [1977 Additional] Protocol is guilty of an offence.
(3) This section applies to persons regardless of their nationality or citizenship. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1) and (3).
Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s Penal Code (1970), as amended in 2002, provides for the punishment of offences such as acts of genocide and “other punishable acts against human rights and international humanitarian law, provided for in the treaties adhered to by Costa Rica or in this Code”. 
Costa Rica, Penal Code, 1970, as amended in 2002, Article 7.
Under another provision entitled “War crimes”, it also provides for the punishment of:
Whoever, in the event of an armed conflict, commits or orders to be committed acts which can be qualified as grave breaches or war crimes, in conformity with the provisions of international treaties to which Costa Rica is a party, regarding the conduct of hostilities, the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, the treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of civilian persons and the protection of cultural property, [applicable] in cases of armed conflict, and under any other instrument of international humanitarian law. 
Costa Rica, Penal Code, 1970, as amended in 2002, Article 378.
The Code further provides for the punishment of crimes against humanity. 
Costa Rica, Penal Code, 1970, as amended in 2002, Article 379.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 1998, in a chapter dealing with offences against the law of nations, provides for the punishment of certain acts committed “in time of war or occupation”, such as “crimes against the civilian population” (Article 138) and “crimes against prisoners of war” (Article 139). It further provides for the punishment of the illegal use of distinctive signs and emblems (Article 473). 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1998, Articles 138–139 and 473.
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), in a chapter entitled “Criminal offences against values protected by international law”, provides for a list of punishable acts committed by “whoever” and some of them “during war, armed conflict or occupation”, such as: “war crimes against the civilian population” (Article 158); “war crimes against the wounded and sick” (Article 159); “war crimes against prisoners of war” (Article 160); “unlawful killing and wounding of the enemy” (Article 161); “unlawful taking of the belongings of those killed or wounded on the battlefield” (Article 162); “forbidden means of combat” (Article 163); “injury of an intermediary” (Article 164); “brutal treatment of the wounded, sick and prisoners of war” (Article 165); “unjustified delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war” (Article 166); “destruction of cultural objects or of facilities containing cultural objects” (Article 167); and “misuse of international symbols” (Article 168). 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Articles 158–168.
Cuba
Cuba’s Military Criminal Code (1979), in a chapter entitled “Offences committed during combat actions”, contains provisions criminalizing certain acts such as: “mistreatment of prisoners of war” (Article 42); “plundering” (Article 43); “violence against the population of the area of military activities” (Article 44); and “prohibited use of banners or symbols of the Red Cross” (Article 45). 
Cuba, Military Criminal Code, 1979, Articles 42–45.
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Geneva Conventions Act (1966), referring to Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, provides for the prosecution and punishment of “any person who, in spite of nationality, commits any serious violation … of the Geneva Conventions in or outside of the Republic”. It further provides:
In case an offence provided by this Article has been committed outside the Republic, a person may be prosecuted, charged with the offence, be tried and punished anywhere within the territory of the Republic, as if the offence had been committed in this territory; for all purposes relative or relevant to the trial or punishment, the offence is considered being committed in this territory. 
Cyprus, Geneva Conventions Act, 1966, Sections 4 (1) and (2).
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979), with respect to “a serious violation of the provisions of the [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”, contains a provision similar to the one in the Geneva Conventions Act. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Sections 4 (1) and (2).
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, under the heading “Crimes against humanity”, provides for the punishment of certain offences such as: “genocide” (Article 259); “torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment” (Article 259a); “use of a forbidden weapon or an unpermitted form of combat” (Article 262); “wartime cruelty” (Article 263); “persecution of a population” (Article 263a); “plunder in a theatre of war” (Article 264); and “misuse of internationally recognized insignia and state insignia” (Article 265). 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Articles 259–259(a) and 262–265.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended in 1980, contains provisions for the punishment of a list of offences such as war crimes which are applicable “in time of war or in an area where a state of siege or a state of emergency has been proclaimed”. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice, 1972, as amended in 1980, Articles 436, 455, 472 and 522–526.
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).
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Code of Military Justice (1953) provides for the punishment of a soldier who infringes certain rules of the law of armed conflict, notably against prisoners of war, hospitals, temples or parlementaires. 
Dominican Republic, Code of Military Justice, 1953, Article 201.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Code of Military Justice (1934) provides for the punishment of various offences committed “in time of international or civil war”, such as arson, destruction of property, plundering of inhabitants or acts of violence against persons (Article 68). It also provides for the punishment of other acts committed “in time of international war”, including offences against prisoners of war, attacks on medical units, transports or personnel, abuse of the red cross, destruction of cultural property, offences against parlementaires (Article 69), despoliation of the wounded or prisoners (Article 70), despoliation of the dead (Article 71), and unnecessary requisition of buildings and objects (Article 72). 
El Salvador, Code of Military Justice, 1934, Articles 68–72.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of acts of “Genocide” (Article 361), “Violations of the laws and customs of war” committed “during an international or a civil war” (Article 362), “Violations of the duties of humanity” (Article 363), and “Enforced disappearance of persons” (Article 364). 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, Articles 361–364.
Estonia
Estonia’s Penal Code (2001) provides for the punishment of a list of crimes, including crimes against humanity (paragraph 89), genocide (paragraph 90), crimes against peace (paragraphs 91–93) or war crimes (paragraphs 94–109). 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, §§ 89–109.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), under the heading “Offences against the law of nations”, provides for a list of punishable acts committed by “whosoever” such as: “war crimes against the civilian population” (Article 282); “war crimes against wounded, sick or shipwrecked persons” (Article 283); “war crimes against prisoners and interned persons” (Article 284); “pillage, piracy and looting” (Article 285); “provocation and preparation [of the above-mentioned acts]” (Article 286); “dereliction of duty towards the enemy” (Article 287); “use of illegal means of combat” (Article 288); “maltreatment of, or dereliction of duty towards, wounded, sick or prisoners” (Article 291); “denial of justice” (Article 292); “hostile acts against international humanitarian organizations” (Article 293); “abuse of international emblems and insignia” (Article 294); and “hostile acts against the bearer of a flag of truce” (Article 295). Some of these provisions specify that the acts concerned be committed “in time of war, armed conflict (or occupation)” and/or “in violation of the rules of public international law”. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Articles 282–288 and 291–295.
Ethiopia
In 1992, the transitional government of Ethiopia adopted the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office Establishment Proclamation which provides:
It is essential that higher officials of the WPE [Workers’ Party of Ethiopia] and members of the security and armed forces who have been detained at the time the EPRDF [Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front] assumed control of the Country and thereafter and who are suspected of having committed offences … must be brought to trial.
Furthermore, the proclamation provides: “It is necessary to provide for the establishment of a Special Public Prosecutor’s Office that shall conduct prompt investigation and bring to trial detainees as well as those persons who are responsible for having committed offences.” 
Ethiopia, Special Public Prosecutor’s Office Establishment Proclamation, 1992, Preamble.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 15.- Crimes Committed in a Foreign Country by a Member of the Defence Forces.
(2) In cases of crimes against international law and specifically military crimes as defined in Articles 269–322, the member of the Defence Forces shall remain subject to national law and be tried under the provisions of this Code by Ethiopian military courts. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 15(2).
Fiji
Fiji’s Geneva Conventions Promulgation (2007), as amended to 2009, states:
Punishment of grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions, … [of the 1977 Additional] Protocol I [and of the 2005 Additional Protocol III]
3. (1) Any person, whatever his or her nationality, who, in Republic of Fiji Islands or elsewhere, commits, or aids, abets or procures any other person to commit, a grave breach of any of the Conventions, of Protocol I, or of Protocol III, is guilty of an indictable offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) a grave breach of the First Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an act referred to in Article 50 of that Convention committed against persons or property protected by that Convention;
(b) a grave breach of the Second Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an act referred to in Article 51 of that Convention committed against persons or property protected by that Convention;
(c) a grave breach of the Third Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an act referred to in Article 130 of that Convention committed against persons or property protected by that Convention;
(d) a grave breach of the Fourth Convention is a breach of that Convention involving an act referred to in Article 147 of that Convention committed against persons or property protected by that Convention;
(e) a grave breach of Protocol I is anything referred to as a grave breach of the Protocol in paragraph 4 of Article 11, or paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of Article 85, of the Protocol; and
(f) a grave breach of Protocol III is any misuse of the third Protocol emblem amounting to perfidious use in the meaning of Article 85 paragraph 3 (f) of Protocol I.
Punishment of other breaches of the Conventions and Protocols
4.(1) Any person, whatever his or her nationality, who, in Republic of Fiji Islands, commits, or aids, abets or procures any other person to commit, a breach of any of the Conventions or Protocols not covered by section 3, is guilty of an indictable offence.
(2) Any national of Republic of Fiji Islands who, outside Republic of Fiji Islands, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of a breach of any of the Conventions or Protocols not covered by section 3, is guilty of an indictable offence. 
Fiji, Geneva Conventions Promulgation, 2007, as amended to 2009, §§ 3(1)–(2) and 4(1)–(2).
Finland
Finland’s Revised Penal Code (1995), in a chapter dealing with “War crimes and offences against humanity”, provides:
Any person who in an act of war
(1) uses a prohibited means of warfare or weapon;
(2) abuses an international symbol designated for the protection of the wounded and sick; or
(3) otherwise violates the provisions of an international agreement on warfare binding on Finland or the generally acknowledged and established rules and customs of war under public international law
shall be sentenced for a war crime. 
Finland, Revised Penal Code, 1995, Chapter 11, Section 1(1).
Finland
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended to 2008, states:
Section 5 - War crime
(1) A person who in connection with a war or other international or domestic armed conflict or occupation in violation of the Geneva conventions on the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field, the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, the treatment of prisoners of war or the protection of civilian persons in time of war (Treaties of Finland 8/1955, Geneva conventions) or the additional amendment protocols … to the Geneva Conventions, on the protection of victims of international armed conflicts and the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Treaties of Finland 82/1980, I and II protocols) or other rules and customs of international law on war, armed conflict of occupation, [commits one of the offences enumerated in Section 5(1)],
shall be sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended to 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1).
[emphasis in original]
France
France’s Ordinance on Repression of War Crimes (1944) provides for the prosecution of certain persons having committed specific acts from the opening of hostilities. 
France, Ordinance on Repression of War Crimes, 1944, Article 1.
France
France’s Penal Code (1992) provides for the punishment of a list of certain acts such as genocide and crimes against humanity and also provides for a special norm in case such crimes are committed “in times of war”. 
France, Penal Code, 1992, Articles 211(1)–212(3).
France
France’s Laws on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995) and ICTR (1996) provide for the punishment of authors and accomplices of serious violations of IHL. 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1995, Article 2; Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 1996, Article 2.
France
France’s Code of Military Justice (2006) states:
The authorities qualified to engage in prosecution and, if they have received the assignment to do so, the commissioners of government take or have [others] take all necessary measures for the investigation and the prosecution of offences relevant for the jurisdictional competence of the armed forces. 
France, Code of Military Justice, 2006, Article L. 212-2.
Georgia
Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), in a part entitled “Crimes against peace and security of mankind and international humanitarian law”, provides for a list of punishable offences such as: “genocide” (Article 407); “crimes against humanity” (Article 408); “mercenaries” (Article 410); “wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in armed conflict” (Article 411); “wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in international or internal armed conflict with the threat to health or causing bodily injury” (Article 412); and “other breaches of norms of international humanitarian law” (Article 413), the latter including “any other war crime provided for in the [1998 ICC Statute]”. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Articles 407–408 and 410–413.
For some of these offences, the Code specifies that the acts be committed “in an international or internal armed conflict”. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Articles 411–412.
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) applies “to all criminal offences against international law designated under this Act, to serious offences designated therein even when the offence was committed abroad and bears no relation to Germany”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 1.
The Law provides for the punishment of, inter alia: genocide (Article 1, paragraph 6); crimes against humanity (Article 1, paragraph 7) and war crimes, including “War crimes against persons” (Article 1, paragraph 8); “War crimes against property and other rights” (Article 1, paragraph 9); “War crimes against humanitarian operations and emblems” (Article 1, paragraph 10); “War crimes consisting in the use of prohibited methods of warfare” (Article 1, paragraph 11); and “War crimes consisting in employment of prohibited means of warfare” (Article 1, paragraph 12). 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, §§ 6–12.
The Law states that some of these crimes must be punished when committed “in connection with an international armed conflict or with an armed conflict not of an international character”, some others when committed “in connection with an international armed conflict”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, §§ 8(1)–(2), 9(1), 10(1)–(2), 11(1)–(2) and 12 (international and non-international armed conflict); Article 1, §§ 8(3), 9(2) and 11(3) (international armed conflict).
The Law further provides: “The prosecution of serious criminal offences pursuant to this Act inter alia, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes] and the execution of sentences imposed on their account shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.” 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 5.
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Penal Code (1973) provides for the punishment of certain war crimes, namely those committed against prisoners of war, the civilian population and certain objects. 
Guatemala, Penal Code, 1973, Article 378.
Guinea
Guinea’s Criminal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of certain acts constitutive of violations of IHL, such as pillage, the despoliation of the dead, wounded, sick and shipwrecked in a zone of military operations, and the use, in an area of military operations and in violation of the laws and customs of war, of distinctive insignia or emblems defined under international conventions. 
Guinea, Criminal Code, 1998, Articles 569, 570 and 579.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Military Justice (2011) states: “Without prejudice to the suppression and punishment of acts that … are contrary to the laws and customs of war and international conventions, military offences … shall be punished.” 
Guinea, Code of Military Justice, 2011, Article 100.
Hungary
Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, under the title “Crimes against humanity”, provides for the punishment of a list of certain acts including genocide and war crimes, some of them when committed “in an operational or occupied area” or “violating the rules of the international law of warfare”. These acts include: “Violence against the civilian population” (Article 158); “War-time looting” (Article 159); “Wanton warfare” (Article 160); “Use of weapons prohibited by international treaty” (Article 160/A); “Battlefield looting” (Article 161); “Violence against a war emissary” (Article 163); and “Misuse of the red cross” (Article 164). 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Sections 155–165.
India
India’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) provides:
(3) If any person within or without India commits or attempts to commit, or abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva Conventions] he shall be punished …
(4) When an offence under this chapter [i.e. a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] is committed by any person outside India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found. 
India, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Sections 3 and 4.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides:
Any person, whatever his or her nationality, who, whether in or outside the State, commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction on indictment [be liable to punishment]. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3.
The Act also provides for the punishment of “minor breaches” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols in the following terms:
Any person, whatever his nationality, who, in the State, commits, or aids, or abets or procures the commission in the State by any other person of any other minor breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] or [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] shall be guilty of an offence.
Any person, whatever his nationality, who, outside the State, commits, or aids, or abets or procures the commission outside the State by any other person of any other minor breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] or [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] shall be guilty of an offence.
Any person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable [to punishment]. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4.
Ireland
Ireland’s International Criminal Court Act (2006) states: “Any person who commits … a war crime is guilty of an offence.” 
Ireland, International Criminal Court Act, 2006, § 7(1).
Israel
Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (1950) provides for the punishment of:
(a) a person who has committed one of the following offences –
(1) done, during the period of the Nazi régime, in an enemy country, an act constituting a crime against the Jewish people;
(2) done, during the period of the Nazi régime, in an enemy country, an act constituting a crime against humanity;
(3) done, during the period of the Second World War, in an enemy country, an act constituting a war crime. 
Israel, Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950, Section 1(a).
Italy
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) provides for the punishment of various offences related to wartime activity. 
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Articles 167–230.
Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002), in a part entitled “war crimes”, contains a list of offences “committed in the event of armed conflicts” with respect to which it provides for punishment. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41.
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s Penal Code (1997), in a special part entitled “Crimes against the peace and security of mankind”, provides a list of punishable acts such as: “the use of prohibited means and methods of warfare” in an armed conflict (Article 159); “genocide” (Article 160); “ecocide” (Article 161); “mercenaries” (Article 162); and “attacks against persons or organizations beneficiaries of an international protection” (Article 163). 
Kazakhstan, Penal Code, 1997, Articles 156–164.
Kenya
Kenya’s Geneva Conventions Act (1968) provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or outside Kenya commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions such as is referred to in [Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] is guilty of an offence and [shall be sentenced].
(2) Where an offence under this section is committed outside Kenya, a person may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished therefor in any place in Kenya, as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place. 
Kenya, Geneva Conventions Act, 1968, Section 3(1) and (2).
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan’s Criminal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of acts such as: “intentional destruction of historical and cultural monuments” (Article 172); “capture of hostages” (Article 224); “ecocide” (Article 374); the participation of mercenaries “in an armed conflict or in hostilities” (Article 375); and “attacks against persons or institutions under international protection” (Article 376). 
Kyrgyzstan, Criminal Code, 1997, Articles 172, 224 and 374–376.
Latvia
Latvia’s Criminal Code (1998) contains a chapter entitled “Crimes against humanity and peace, war crimes and genocide” in which it provides for certain punishable offences such as: “genocide” (Section 71); “war crimes” (Section 74); “pillage” (Section 76); and “destruction of cultural and national heritage” (Section 79). 
Latvia, Criminal Code, 1998, Sections 71–79.
Liberia
Liberia’s Act to Establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2005) states:
Preamble
Considering that the civil conflict was generally characterized by … violation of international humanitarian laws and standards.
Article IV. Mandate of the Commission
Section 4. The objectives/purpose of the Commission shall be to promote national peace, security, unity and reconciliation by:
(a) Investigating … violations of international humanitarian law as well as abuses that occurred, including massacres, sexual violations, murder, extra-judicial killings and economic crimes, such as the exploitation of natural or public resources to perpetuate armed conflicts, during the period January 1979 to October 14, 2003; determining whether these were isolated incidents or part of a systematic pattern; establishing the antecedents, circumstances factors and context of such violations and abuses; and determining those responsible for the commission of the violations and abuses and their motives as well as their impact on victims. Notwithstanding the period specified herein, the Commission may, on an application by any person or group of persons, pursue the objectives set out in this Article IV (Mandate of the Commission) in respect of any other period preceding 1979.
(b) Providing a forum that will address issues of impunity, as well as an opportunity for both victims and perpetrators … to share their experiences in order to create a clear picture of the past to facilitate genuine healing and reconciliation. 
Liberia, Act to Establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2005, Preamble and Article IV, Section 4.
The Act also states:
The TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission] shall enjoy and exercise such functions and powers as are relevant for the realization of its mandates. Its functions and powers shall include, but not be limited to:
(j) Making recommendations to the Head of State with regard to:
(iii) The need for continuing investigations and inquiries into particular matters, at the discretion of the TRC; and
(iv) The need to hold prosecutions in particular cases as the TRC deems appropriate. 
Liberia, Act to Establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2005, Article VII, Section 26.
Lithuania
Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, in a chapter entitled “War crimes”, contains a list of punishable offences. Some of these offences are to be punished when committed in “violation of humanitarian law in time of war, during an international armed conflict or occupation”. Some others are to be punished when committed “in time of war, during an armed conflict or occupation”. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Articles 333–344.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Repression of War Crimes (1947) provides for the prosecution and sentencing of non-Luxembourg nationals having committed war crimes
if such infringements have been committed at the occasion or under the pretext of war and if they are not justified by the laws and customs of war, these agents either being found within the Grand-Duché or on enemy territory, or the Government having obtained their extradition. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Repression of War Crimes, 1947, Article 1.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985) provides for the prosecution and punishment of persons having committed or being involved in the commission of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Articles 1–8.
The Law also provides: “Any individual who has committed an offence under this law outside the territory of the Grand-Duché can be prosecuted in the Grand-Duché even though he may not be present there.” 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Article 10.
Malawi
Malawi’s Geneva Conventions Act (1967) provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or without Malawi commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions as is referred to in [Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] shall without prejudice to his liability under any other written law be guilty of an offence and [be liable to imprisonment].
(2) Where an offence under this section is committed without Malawi a person may be proceeded against, tried and punished therefor in any place in Malawi as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place. 
Malawi, Geneva Conventions Act, 1967, Section 4(1) and (2).
Malaysia
Malaysia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962) provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside the Federation, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of any such grave breach of [Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV], shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction thereof [be punished].
(2) In the case of an offence under this section committed outside the Federation, a person may be proceeded against, charged, tried and punished therefor in any place in the Federation as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place. 
Malaysia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, Section 3(1) and (2).
Mali
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) provides for the punishment of the perpetrators of certain crimes such as “crimes against humanity” (Article 29), “genocide” (Article 30) and a list of “war crimes” covering the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict (Article 31). 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Articles 29–31.
Mauritius
The Geneva Conventions Act (1970) of Mauritius provides:
(1) Any person who in Mauritius or elsewhere commits, or is an accomplice in the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I shall commit an offence.
(3) This section applies to persons regardless of their nationality or citizenship.
(4) Any person who commits an offence against this section shall, on conviction, be liable [to punishment]. 
Mauritius, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 3(1), (3) and (4).
Mexico
Mexico’s Penal Code (1931), as amended to 2000, under the heading “Offences against the duties of humanity”, provides for the punishment of a number of offences committed against certain protected persons and objects. 
Mexico, Penal Code, 1931, as amended to 2000, Article 149.
Mexico
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, under the headings “Crimes against the laws of nations” and “Crimes committed in the exercise of military duties or with relation to them” provides for the punishment of perpetrators of a number of offences related to war operations. 
Mexico, Code of Military Justice, 1933, as amended in 1996, Articles 208–215 and 324–337.
Mozambique
Mozambique’s Military Criminal Law (1987) provides for the punishment of persons committing crimes listed thereunder, some of them being committed “in an armed confrontation [and in violation of] generally accepted international rules” or “in times of war” and/or “in the theatre of operations”. 
Mozambique, Military Criminal Law, 1987, Articles 83–89.
Netherlands
The aim of the Criminal Law in Wartime Act (1952), as amended in 1990, of the Netherlands is “to establish provisions concerning offences committed in the event of war and their prosecution”. 
Netherlands, Criminal Law in Wartime Act, 1952, as amended in 1990, preamble.
The term “war” is considered to include civil war. 
Netherlands, Criminal Law in Wartime Act, 1952, as amended in 1990, Article 1, § 3.
The Act states: “The special courts may … take cognisance of crimes defined in the International Crimes Act [genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture].” 
Netherlands, Criminal Law in Wartime Act, 1952, as amended in 1990, Article 12, § 3.
Netherlands
The International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands provides for the punishment of genocide (Article 3), crimes against humanity (Article 4), war crimes committed in international armed conflicts (Article 5) or non-international armed conflicts (Article 6), and torture (Article 8). The Act also punishes “anyone who, in the case of an international or non-international armed conflict, commits a violation of the laws and customs of war other than as referred to in Articles 5 and 6”. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 3–8.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:
(1) Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of the First [Additional] Protocol is guilty of an indictable offence.
(3) This section applies to persons regardless of their nationality or citizenship. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1) and (3).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000) provides: “Every person is liable on conviction on indictment to the penalty specified in subsection (3) who, in New Zealand or elsewhere, commits a war crime.” The Act includes similar provisions with respect to genocide and crimes against humanity. War crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity are defined as the acts specified in the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Sections 9–11.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Law (1980) provides for the punishment of persons who commit “mistreatment of prisoners of war (Article 80), “looting” (Article 81), “abuses at the occasion of military activities” (Article 82) and “unlawful use of the symbols of the Red Cross” (Article 83). 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Law, 1980, Articles 80–83.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996), under the headings “Crimes against international humanitarian law” and “Specific crimes against the laws and customs of war”, provides for the punishment of certain offences, for some of them specifying that they be committed “during an international or civil war” and/or “in times of war”. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Articles 47–61.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Revised Penal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of “anyone who, during an international or a civil war, commits serious violations of the international conventions relating to the use of prohibited weapons, the treatment of prisoners and other norms related to war”. 
Nicaragua, Revised Penal Code, 1998, Article 551.
Niger
Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, under a chapter entitled “Crimes against humanity and war crimes”, provides for the punishment of a list of offences such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes defined as serious offences against the persons and objects protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Articles 208.1–208.8.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) provides:
(1) If, whether in or outside the Federal Republic of Nigeria, any person, whatever his nationality, commits, or aids, abets or procures any other person to commit any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva Conventions] … he shall, on conviction thereof [be punished].
(2) A person may be proceeded against, tried and sentenced in the Federal Capital for an offence under this section committed outside Nigeria as if the offence had been committed in the Federal Capital, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in the Federal Capital. 
Nigeria, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 3(1) and (2).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides for the punishment of “anyone who uses a weapon or means of combat which is prohibited by any international agreement to which Norway has acceded, or who is accessory thereto” and of “anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property” laid down in the 1949 Geneva Conventions or the 1977 Additional Protocols I or II. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, §§ 107–108.
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea’s Geneva Conventions Act (1976) provides:
(2) A person who, in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions is guilty of an offence.
(3) This section applies to persons regardless of their nationality or citizenship. 
Papua New Guinea, Geneva Conventions Act, 1976, Section 7(2) and (3).
Paraguay
Paraguay’s Military Penal Code (1980), under the heading “Provisions with regard to times of war”, provides for the punishment of a list of offences. 
Paraguay, Military Penal Code, 1980, Articles 282–296.
Paraguay
Paraguay’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of offences such as “torture” (Article 309), “genocide” (Article 319) and a list of “war crimes” (Article 320), stating in the case of “war crimes” that they be committed “in violation of international laws of war, armed conflict or military occupation”. 
Paraguay, Penal Code, 1997, Articles 309 and 319–320.
Peru
Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980), in a part entitled “Violations of the law of nations”, provides for the punishment of a list of offences, some of them when committed “in times of war”. 
Peru, Code of Military Justice, 1980, Articles 91–96.
Peru
Peru’s Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan (2005) lists as an objective “the modification of domestic law in order to establish the mechanisms necessary to avoid impunity for the commission of international crimes”. 
Peru, Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan, 2005, § 3.1.3 A1.
Philippines
The War Crimes Trial Executive Order (1947) of the Philippines provides for a list of punishable offences including “violations of the laws and customs of war” and other specified acts committed “before or during the war … whether or not in violation of the local laws”. 
Philippines, War Crimes Trial Executive Order, 1947, § II(b)(2) and (3).
Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997), in a specific part entitled “Offences against peace, humanity and war offences”, provides for the punishment of certain acts, some of them when committed “during hostilities” or “in violation of international law”, such as internationally prohibited acts against certain specific protected persons – including persons “who, during hostilities, enjoy international protection” – and objects, as well as the use of means or methods of combat prohibited by international law. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Articles 117–126.
Portugal
Portugal’s Penal Code (1996), under the headings “War crimes against civilians” and “Destruction of monuments”, provides for the punishment of certain offences when committed “in times of war, of armed conflict or occupation”. 
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Articles 241–242.
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) provides sanctions for perpetrators of certain acts such as: “genocide” (Article 135); “ecocide” (Article 136); “inhuman treatments” (Article 137); “violations of international humanitarian law” committed “during an armed conflict or hostilities” (Article 138); “mercenary activity … in an armed conflict or military hostilities” (Article 141); “use of prohibited means and methods of warfare … during an armed conflict” (Article 143); “unlawful use of the red cross signs” (Article 363); “pillage of the dead on the battlefield” (Article 389); “acts of violence against the civilian population in the area of military hostilities” (Article 390); “grave breaches of international humanitarian law … committed during international and internal armed conflicts” (Article 391); and “perfidious use of the red cross emblem as a protective sign during armed conflict” (Article 392). 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Articles 135–138, 141, 143, 363 and 389–392.
Romania
Romania’s Law on the Punishment of War Criminals (1945) provides for the punishment of precisely defined “criminals of war”. 
Romania, Law on the Punishment of War Criminals, 1945, Articles I and III.
Romania
Romania’s Penal Code (1968), in provisions entitled “[Unlawful] use of the emblem of the Red Cross” (Article 294), “Use of the emblem of the Red Cross during military operations” (Article 351), “Inhuman treatment” (Article 358) and “Destruction of objects and appropriation of property” (Article 359), provides for the punishment of offences listed thereunder, stating for some of those offences that they be committed “in times of war and in relation with military operations” or “in times of war”. 
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Articles 294, 351 and 358–359.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Decree on the Punishment of War Criminals (1965) states:
The peoples of the Soviet Union that suffered losses during the war cannot let fascist barbarians go unpunished. The Soviet State has always proceeded from the universally recognized rules of international law that provide for the inevitable prosecution of Nazi criminals, no matter where and for how long they have been hiding from justice. 
Russian Federation, Decree on the Punishment of War Criminals, 1965, preamble.
The Decree also provides: “Nazi criminals, guilty of most serious crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes, are subject to prosecution and punishment.” 
Russian Federation, Decree on the Punishment of War Criminals, 1965.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996), in a chapter entitled “Crimes against the peace and security of mankind” and under a provision entitled “Use of banned means and methods of warfare”, provides for the punishment of
cruel treatment of prisoners of war, deportation of the civilian population, plunder of the national property in the occupied territory and use in a military conflict of means and methods of warfare banned by [international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party]. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 356.
The Code further provides for the punishment of offences such as genocide, ecocide, use of, and participation by, mercenaries in an armed conflict or hostilities, and assaults on persons or institutions enjoying international protection. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Articles 357–360.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Setting up Gacaca Jurisdictions (2001) aims
to organize the putting on trial of persons prosecuted for having, between 1 October 1990 and 31 December 1994, committed acts qualified and punished by the Penal Code and which constitute:
… crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity as defined by the [1948 Genocide Convention], by the [1949 Geneva Convention IV and the 1977 Additional Protocols], as well as in the [1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity]. 
Rwanda, Law Setting up Gacaca Jurisdictions, 2001, Article 1.
Article One: Purpose of this Organic Law
This Organic Law terminates Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying persons accused of the crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994.
It also determines mechanism of solving pending issues that were under their jurisdiction and any issues, which may rise after.
Article 2: Termination of the Gacaca Courts
Gacaca Courts charged with prosecuting and trying persons accused of the crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994, are hereby terminated.
Article 3: Laws governing the prosecution and punishment of acts constituting the crime of Genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity
The prosecution and punishment of acts constituting the crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity which were committed between October 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 in the jurisdiction of Gacaca Courts shall be exercised by competent organs according to laws in force applicable in these matters.
Article 4: Acts constituting the crime of genocide perpetrated against Tutsi and other crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the Intermediate Court
The following offences shall be tried at the first instance by the Intermediate Court:
Serbia
Serbia’s Law on Organization and Competence of Government Authorities in War Crimes Proceedings (2003) states:
Article 2
This Law shall apply in detecting, prosecuting and trying:
(2) serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991, stipulated in the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Article 3
The government authorities of the Republic of Serbia set out under this Law shall have jurisdiction in proceedings for criminal offences specified in Article 2 hereof, committed on the territory of the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator or victim. 
Serbia, Law on Organization and Competence of Government Authorities in War Crimes Proceedings, 2003, Articles 2 and 3.
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states:
(1) Whoever during time of war or armed conflict orders the employment of means or methods of warfare that are banned under rules of international law, or who uses such means or methods, shall be punished by imprisonment from two to ten years.
(2) If the offence specified in paragraph 1 of this Article results in the killing of a number of persons, the offender shall be punished by a minimum of five years imprisonment [up to a maximum of] thirty to forty years’ imprisonment. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 376(1)–(2).
Seychelles
The Geneva Conventions Act (1985) of the Seychelles provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Seychelles, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of, any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions … is guilty of an offence and … shall on conviction [be punished].
(2) Where an offence under this section is committed outside Seychelles, a person may be proceeded against, charged, tried and punished therefor in any place in Seychelles, as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence is, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, deemed to have been committed in that place. 
Seychelles, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, Section 3(1) and (2).
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
2. Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977] First [Additional] Protocol.
(1) A person of whatever nationality commits an offence if that person, whether within or outside Sierra Leone[,] commits, aids, abets or procures any other person to commit a grave breach specified in –
(a) article 50 of the First Geneva Convention [on grave breaches];
(b) article 51 of the Second Geneva Convention [on grave breaches];
(c) article 130 of the Third Geneva Convention [on grave breaches];
(d) article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [on grave breaches];
(e) paragraph 4 of article 11 or paragraph 2, 3, or 4 of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on grave breaches].
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction –
(a) in the case of a grave breach which involves the willful killing of a person protected by the relevant Convention or Protocol to imprisonment for life;
(b) in the case of any other grave breach, to imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding twenty five years.
(3) A person who in Sierra Leone commits, abets, aids or procures any other person to commit a breach of the Conventions or [1977 Additional] Protocols [I and II] not covered under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding twenty five years.
(4) A citizen of Sierra Leone who outside Sierra Leone commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of a breach of any of the Conventions or [1977 Additional] Protocols [I and II] not covered under subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than 10 years and not exceeding 25 years.
(5) Where a person commits an offence under this section outside Sierra Leone, that person may be tried and punished as if the offence was committed in Sierra Leone.
3. Jurisdiction of Courts
(1) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to try an offence committed under section 2.
(2) Act No. 34 of 1961. A court martial may try a person for an offence which under the Armed Forces of Sierra Leone Act is triable by that court although the offence is also an offence under section 2. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Sections 2–3.
Singapore
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act (1973) provides:
1) Any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside Singapore, commits, aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and on conviction thereof … [be punished].
(2) In the case of an offence under this section committed outside Singapore, a person may be proceeded against, charged, tried and punished therefor in any place in Singapore as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for the purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place.  
Singapore, Geneva Conventions Act, 1973, Section 3(1) and (2).
Slovakia
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, under the heading “Crimes against humanity”, provides for the punishment of certain offences such as: “genocide” (Article 259); “torture and other inhuman and cruel treatment” (Article 259a); “use of a forbidden weapon or an unpermitted form of combat” (Article 262); “wartime cruelty” (Article 263); “persecution of a population” (Article 263a); “plunder in a theatre of war” (Article 264); and “misuse of internationally recognized insignia and state insignia” (Article 265). 
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Articles 259–259(a) and 262–265.
Slovenia
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), in a chapter entitled “Criminal offences against humanity and international law”, criminalizes certain acts, committed by “whoever” and some of them “during war, armed conflict (or occupation)”, such as: “war crimes against the civilian population” (Article 374); “war crimes against the wounded and sick” (Article 375); “war crimes against prisoners of war” (Article 376); “use of unlawful weapons” (Article 377); “unlawful killing and wounding of the enemy” (Article 379); “unlawful plundering on the battlefield” (Article 380); “infringement of the rights of parlementaires” (Article 381); “maltreatment of the sick and wounded, and of prisoners of war” (Article 382); “unjustified delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war” (Article 383); “destruction of cultural and historical monuments and natural sites” (Article 384); and “abuse of international symbols” (Article 386). 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Articles 374–386.
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
358. Where a commander orders or authorizes the use of forbidden means of warfare. – 1. The commander of a military force who, to harm the enemy, orders or authorizes the use of any of the means or methods of warfare that are forbidden by law or by international agreements, or that are contrary to military honour, shall be liable to confinement for not less than five years, except where the act is specified as an offence by a special provision of law.
2. If the act leads to a massacre, a penalty of confinement for not less than 10 years shall be applied.
359. Use of forbidden means of warfare by a person other than a commander. – 1. The penalties prescribed in the preceding article apply also to anyone who, to harm the enemy, employs means or methods that are forbidden by law or by international agreements. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Articles 358–359.
Somalia
Somalia’s Act of Military Discipline (1975) states:
24. … If a member of the army commits a violation, and a junior Commanding Officer finds out, he shall investigate and try to find … any possible evidence and then pass [this on] to his Commanding Officer, in accordance with the chain of command.
192. When a soldier within the squad is involved in a serious crime or a serious disciplinary matter, the Commanding Officer, through the Commanding Officer of the platoon, shall inform the Commanding Officer of the army; providing [a] detailed account of the incident and any witnesses. He must also attach the individual report regarding the conduct of the alleged person. He then shall send the collated information and evidences in the form of a report. 
Somalia, Act of Military Discipline, 1975, Articles 24 and 192.
Spain
Under Spain’s Law on Judicial Power (1985), Spanish criminal courts have jurisdiction over offences committed by Spanish nationals and aliens, on Spanish territory or outside it, which constitute genocide or any other offence that, according to international treaties or conventions, must be prosecuted in Spain. 
Spain, Law on Judicial Power, 1985, Article 23(4).
Spain
Spain’s Law on Judicial Power (1985), as amended in 2009, states:
2. … [Spanish courts] have jurisdiction over acts that constitute offences according to Spanish penal law even if these were committed outside the national territory, as long as those criminally responsible were Spanish nationals or foreigners who had acquired Spanish nationality prior to the commission of the act, and if the following conditions are met:
c. That the offender has not been acquitted, pardoned or sentenced abroad or, in the latter case, has not completed his or her sentence abroad. If he or she only completed it partly, this will be taken into account in order to proportionally reduce the [sentence] which he or she must complete.
4. … Spanish courts have jurisdiction over offences committed by Spanish and foreign nationals outside the national territory, which constitute any of the following offences according to Spanish law:
h. Any other [act] that according to international treaties and conventions, in particular those Conventions on international humanitarian law and the protection of human rights, must be prosecuted in Spain.
Without prejudice to that disposed by the treaties and international conventions that Spain is a party to, in order for Spanish tribunals to have jurisdiction over the above-mentioned offences it must be demonstrated … that no other procedure leading to an investigation or effective prosecution, as the case may be, of the same punishable acts has been initiated in another country with jurisdiction or within an international tribunal.
The prosecution initiated before Spanish courts will be temporarily dismissed when it is established that another process on the denounced acts has been initiated in the country or tribunal referred to in the above paragraph.
5. If the prosecution is transferred to Spain according to the conditions in … paragraph 4, paragraph 2(c) of this article will in any case be applicable. 
Spain, Law on Judicial Power, 1985, as amended on 3 November 2009, Article 23(2)(c), (4)(h) and (5).
Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) contains a part on “Crimes against the laws and customs of war” and provides for the punishment of soldiers committing acts listed thereunder. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Articles 69–78.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), in chapters entitled “Genocide” and “Offences against protected persons and objects in the event of armed conflict”, criminalizes offences listed thereunder. Protected persons in the meaning of the chapter on “Offences against protected persons and objects in the event of armed conflict” are those protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and both 1977 Additional Protocols, as well as those falling within the scope of “whatever other international treaty to which Spain is a party”. The chapter contains several provisions regarding the punishment of certain acts “committed in the event of an armed conflict”. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Articles 607–614.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict uses or orders the employment of means or methods of combat that are prohibited … shall be punished with ten to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to the penalty for the results of such acts. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 610.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, provides:
Anyone who, in the event of an armed conflict, commits or orders to commit any of the following violations or acts in breach of the international treaties to which Spain is a signatory and relating to the conduct of hostilities, the regulation of the means and methods of war, the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, the treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of civilians and the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, shall be sentenced to six months to two years’ imprisonment. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 614.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) states:
2. (1) Any person, whether a citizen of Sri Lanka or not, who within or outside Sri Lanka –
(a) commits or attempts to commit; or
(b) aids, abets, conspires or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach in terms of the relevant Articles of the Conventions as are set out in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III and Schedule IV to this Act and are also enumerated in subsection (2) of this section, shall be guilty of an offence.
3. Subject to the provisions of section 6, every prosecution for an offence in terms of section 2 shall be by way of direct indictment filed by the Attorney-General. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Sections 2–3.
The Act includes the following paragraph from the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered the commission of such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule I: Article 49, Schedule III: Article 129, and Schedule IV: Article 146; see also Schedule II: Article 50.
Sweden
Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, provides for the punishment of “a person guilty of a serious violation of a treaty or agreement with a foreign power or an infraction of a generally recognised principle or tenet relating to international humanitarian law concerning armed conflicts”. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, states that the provisions of its chapter dealing with “Offences committed against the law of nations in case of armed conflict” are “applicable in case of declared war and other armed conflicts between two or more States” and also provide for “the punishment of violations of international agreements if these agreements provide for a wider scope of application” (Article 108). The Code provides for the punishment of offences listed under this chapter, and especially – among other more specific offences – of “anyone who contravenes the prescriptions of international conventions relating to the conduct of hostilities, as well as to the protection of persons and objects, [and] anyone who violates other recognized laws and customs of war”. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended, Articles 108–114.
Other offences, such as pillage committed in time of war or marauding on the battlefield are also to be punished. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code as amended, 1927, Articles 139–140.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended in 2007, states in a chapter entitled “Offences committed against the law of nations in case of armed conflict”:
1. The provisions of the present chapter apply in case of declared wars and other armed conflicts between two or more States …
2. The provisions of international agreements are also punishable if these agreements provide for a wider scope of application. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 108(1)–(2).
The Code further states:
Any person who has contravened the prescriptions of international conventions on the conduct of hostilities and on the protection of persons and objects, [and]
any person who has violated other recognized laws and customs of war must be punished with three years’ or more imprisonment or with a monetary penalty unless more severe provisions are applicable or, in less serious cases, with a year imprisonment or less. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 109(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, which also contains a chapter on war crimes, states in the part on general provisions:
Art. 3
1 Subject to military criminal law are:
1. Persons subject to military service, during their military service, with the exception of those on leave who commit, without a link to service of the troop, offences under art. 115 to 137b and 145 to 179;
2. Officials, employees and workers of the military administration of the Confederation and the cantons, for acts relevant to national defence, and when they are in uniform;
3. Persons subject to military service, when they are in uniform outside service and commit offences under art. 61 to 114 and 138 to 144;
4. Persons subject to military service, even outside service, in relation to their military situation and their official duties, as well as persons who were subject to military service insofar as they have not fulfilled their official duties;
6. Professional military persons, contracted military persons, persons who are part of the border guard corps as well as persons who, according to Article 66 of the Federal law of 3 February 1995 on the army and the military administration, carry out peace support service, for offences committed during the service, offences committed outside service but related to their military obligations or military situation, and offences they commit in uniform;
8. Civilians or foreign military persons, for acts under art. 115 to 179 which they commit while employed or mandated by the armed forces or the military administration while working with the troops;
9. Civilians or foreign military persons who commit abroad against a Swiss military person one of the acts under … chapter 6bis (art. 110 to 114) [war crimes] of Part 2 or of art. 114a [punishability of superiors].
2 The persons mentioned under paragraph 1, numbers 1, 2, 6 and 8 are, during the full duration of their engagement abroad, subject to military criminal law if they commit abroad an act punishable according to the present law.
Art. 4
In case of active service are subject to military criminal law also, if and to the degree decided by the Federal Council:
4. Military internees of belligerent States who belong to their armed forces, militias or voluntary corps, including organized resistance movements, civilian internees and refugees who are under the military’s charge;
5. Officials, employees and workers of the military administration of the Confederation and the cantons, including those of military establishments and workshops, of services and establishments of vital interest, in particular of water distribution services, waterworks, electrical power stations, gas works and hospitals.
Art. 5
1 In times of war, in addition to the persons mentioned in art. 3 and 4, the following are subject to military criminal law:
1. Civilians who make themselves culpable of one of the following offences:
d. … war crimes (Part 2, chapter 6bis [war crimes] and art. 139 [pillage]);
2. Prisoners of war, for offences under this code, including those they have committed, in Switzerland or abroad, during the war and before the beginning of their captivity, against the Swiss state or army, or against persons belonging to the Swiss army;
3. Enemy parlementaires and the persons accompanying them, if they abuse their position to commit an offence;
4. Civilian internees in regions of war or under occupation;
5. Foreign military persons who make themselves culpable of … a war crime (Part 2, chapter 6bis, and article 139).
2 The provisions on the punishability of superiors (art. 114a) are applicable to the cases under paragraph 1, number 1(d) and number 5. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 3(1)(1)–(4), (6), (8)–(9) and (2), 4(4)–(5) and 5(1)(1)(d), (2)–(5) and (2).
[footnotes in original omitted]
In the same part, the Code further states:
Art. 10
1 If the personal conditions are fulfilled, the present code is applicable both to offences committed in Switzerland and to those committed abroad.
1bis The present code applies to persons mentioned in art. 5 [paragraph 1], number 1, letter d and number 5, who have committed abroad one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors] if they are present in Switzerland, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland.
1ter Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there;
c. the necessary evidence cannot be obtained.
1quater The present code applies to persons who have committed abroad, against a Swiss military person, one of the acts under … chapter 6bis [war crimes] of Part 2 or art. 114a [punishability of superiors], if they are present in Switzerland or have been extradited there because of this act, unless they are extradited or transferred to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 10(1)–(1quater). The German language version of Article 10(1ter)(b) notes: “the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there; or”.
[footnotes in original omitted]
In the chapter on war crimes, the Code states:
Art. 110
Articles 112–114 [listing a number of violations of IHL, in addition to those under Art. 111] apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.
Art. 111
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than five years for any person who commits, in the context of an international armed conflict, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely one of the following acts against persons or objects protected under one of these Conventions:
2 Acts covered by paragraph 1 committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict are equivalent to grave breaches of international humanitarian law if they are directed against a person or object protected by that law.
Art. 114
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict, violates, in a way not repressed by Articles 111–113, a provision of international humanitarian law whose violation is punishable by virtue of customary international law or an international treaty recognized as binding by Switzerland.
2 The offence is subject to disciplinary punishment if it is not of much gravity. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110–114.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states:
Book One: General Provisions
Part One: Felonies and Misdemeanours
Title One: Scope of Application
Art. 3
1 Any person who commits a felony or misdemeanour in Switzerland is subject to this Code.
Art. 9
This Code does not apply to persons whose offences are subject to military criminal law.
Book Two: Specific Provisions
Title Twelveter: War Crimes
Art. 264b
Articles 264d–264j [listing a number of violations of IHL] apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.
Art. 264c
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than five years for any person who commits, in the context of an international armed conflict, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely one of the following acts against persons or objects protected under one of these Conventions:
2 Acts covered by paragraph 1 committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict are equivalent to grave breaches of international humanitarian law if they are directed against a person or object protected by that law.
Art. 264j
The penalty shall be a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict, violates, in a way not repressed by Articles 264c–264i, a provision of international humanitarian law whose violation is punishable by virtue of customary international law or an international treaty recognized as binding by Switzerland.
Title Twelvequater: Common Provisions for Title Twelves’ and Title Twelveter
Art. 264m
1 A person who carries out an act under Title 12bis and 12ter [on war crimes] or Art. 264k [on the criminal liability of superiors] while abroad is guilty of an offence if he is in Switzerland and is not extradited to another State or delivered to an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland.
2 Where the victim of the act carried out abroad is not Swiss and the perpetrator is not Swiss, the prosecution, with the exception of measures to secure evidence, may be abandoned or may be dispensed with in the following cases:
a. a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognised by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court;
b. the suspected perpetrator is no longer in Switzerland and is not expected to return there.
3 Article 7 paragraphs 4 and 5 [on the principle of ne bis in idem applies unless the acquittal, or the remission or application of time limits for the execution of the sentence abroad has the aim of protecting the offender from punishment without justification. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 3(1), 9(1), 264b, 264c, 264j and 264m; see also Articles 4–7. The German, Italian and Romansh language versions of Article 264m (2)(a) note: “a foreign authority or an international criminal court whose jurisdiction is recognized by Switzerland is prosecuting the offence and the suspected perpetrator is extradited or delivered to the court; or”.
[footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Criminal Procedure Code (2007), as amended to 2012, which regulates the prosecution and adjudication by the federal and cantonal criminal justice authorities of offences under federal law, including war crimes, states: “The criminal justice authorities are obliged to commence and conduct proceedings that fall within their jurisdiction where they are aware of or have grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed.” 
Switzerland, Criminal Procedure Code, 2007, as amended to 2012, Article 7(1).
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of: “illegal use of emblems and signs of the Red Cross and Red Crescent” (Article 333); “genocide” (Article 398); “biocide” (Article 399); “ecocide” (Article 400); “mercenarism” (Article 401); “attacks against persons and establishments under international protection” (Article 402); “wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in [an international or internal] armed conflict” (Article 403); “wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in international or internal armed conflict with the threat to health or causing bodily injury” (Article 404); and “other breaches of the norms of international humanitarian law” (Article 405). 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Articles 333 and 398–405.
Thailand
Thailand’s Prisoners of War Act (1955) provides for the punishment of persons committing offences listed under the heading “Offences with respect to prisoners of war” and offences specified under the heading “Offences in the case of armed conflict not of an international character”. 
Thailand, Prisoners of War Act, 1955, Sections 12–19.
Uganda
Uganda’s Geneva Conventions Act (1964) provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or without Uganda commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions … commits an offence and on conviction thereof [shall be punished].
(2) Where an offence under this section is committed without Uganda a person may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished therefor in any place in Uganda as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place. 
Uganda, Geneva Conventions Act, 1964, Section 1(1) and (2).
Uganda
Uganda’s ICC Act (2010) states:
(1) A person is liable on conviction on indictment to the penalty specified in subsection (3) who, in Uganda or elsewhere, commits a war crime.
(3) The penalty for a war crime is imprisonment for life or a lesser term. 
Uganda, ICC Act, 2010, § 9(1) and (3).
Ukraine
Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001) provides for a list of punishable offences such as, inter alia: “looting” (Article 432); “violence against the civilian population in areas of war operations” (Article 433); “bad treatment of prisoners of war” (Article 434); “unlawful use or misuse of the Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols” (Article 435); “violations of the laws and customs of war”, notably those provided for in international instruments to which Ukraine is a party (Article 438); “use of weapons of mass destruction” (Article 439); “ecocide” (Article 441); “genocide” (Article 442); “illegal use of the symbols of the red cross and red crescent” (Article 445); and “mercenarism” (Article 447). 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Articles 432–447.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] conventions or the first [Additional] protocol shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction on indictment [shall be punished].
(2) In the case of an offence under this section committed outside the United Kingdom, a person may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished therefor in any place in the United Kingdom as if the offence had been committed in that place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1) and (2).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2009, states:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of a grave breach of any of the scheduled [1949 Geneva] conventions, the first [1977 Additional] protocol or the third [2005 Additional] protocol shall be guilty of an offence.
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section—
(a) a grave breach of a scheduled convention is anything referred to as a grave breach of the convention in the relevant Article, that is to say—
(i) in the case of the [1949 Geneva] convention [I] set out in the First Schedule to this Act, Article 50;
(ii) in the case of the [1949 Geneva] convention [II] set out in the Second Schedule to this Act, Article 51;
(iii) in the case of the [1949 Geneva] convention [III] set out in the Third Schedule to this Act, Article 130;
(iv) in the case of the [1949 Geneva] convention [IV] set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, Article 147; and
(b) a grave breach of the first [Additional] protocol is anything referred to as a grave breach of the protocol in paragraph 4 of Article 11, or paragraph 2, 3 or 4 of Article 85, of the protocol.
(c) a grave breach of the third [Additional] protocol is anything which for the purposes of Article 6 of the protocol constitutes the perfidious use of the emblem specified in section 6(1)(f) of this Act. 
UK, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended on 2 July 2009, Section 1(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK War Crimes Act (1991) grants the UK courts jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Germany or German-occupied territory during the Second World War by persons who are now UK citizens or residents, irrespective of their nationality at the time of the alleged offence. The act only applies to crimes such as murder and manslaughter, which “constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war”, and were considered war crimes during the Second World War. 
United Kingdom, War Crimes Act, 1991, Section 1; see also annexed Report of the War Crimes Inquiry, which preceded the 1991 Act, and related documents.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK UN Personnel Act (1997) provides:
If a person commits, outside the United Kingdom, any act to or in relation to a UN worker which, if he had done it in any part of the United Kingdom, would have made him guilty of [murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, rape, assault causing injury, kidnapping, abduction or false imprisonment], he shall in that part of the United Kingdom be guilty of that offence. 
United Kingdom, UN Personnel Act, 1997, Section 1.
This Act does not apply to any UN operation
which is authorised by the Security Council of the United Nations as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, … in which UN workers are engaged as combatants against organised armed forces, and … to which the law of international armed conflict applies. 
United Kingdom, UN Personnel Act, 1997, Section 4(3).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK ICC Act (2001) includes as offences under domestic law, the acts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Part 5, Section 50.
Thus, the Act provides: “It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.” 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Part 5, Section 51.
There is a similar provision for Northern Ireland. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Part 5, Section 58.
United States of America
The US Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region I (1945) established provisions for the punishment of the perpetrators of a list of specific offences and also of “all other offences against the laws or customs of war”, to be pronounced by the military commissions. 
United States, Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region I, 1945, Regulation 5.
United States of America
The US Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region II (1945) established provisions for the punishment of the perpetrators of a list of “violations of the laws and customs of war” and other more specific acts committed “against any civilian population before or during the war”, to be pronounced by the military commissions. 
United States, Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region II, 1945, Regulation 2(b) and (c).
United States of America
The US War Crimes Act (1996) provides:
(a) Offence. – Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be [punishable].
(b) Circumstances. – The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition. – As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct –
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441.
United States of America
The US Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (2004) states with regard to the treatment of aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings or other atrocities abroad:
Sec. 5505. Establishment of the Office of Special Investigations.
(a) AMENDMENT OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT. – Section 103 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1103) is amended by adding at the end the following:
(h)(1) The Attorney General shall establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of Special Investigations with the authority to detect and investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to denaturalize any alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E) [relating to assistance in Nazi persecution, participation in genocide, or commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings].
(2) The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in making determinations concerning the criminal prosecution or extradition of aliens described in section 212(a)(3)(E).
(3) In determining the appropriate legal action to take against an alien described in section 212(a)(3)(E), consideration shall be given to –
(A) the availability of criminal prosecution under the laws of the United States for any conduct that may form the basis for removal and denaturalization; or
(B) the availability of extradition of the alien to a foreign jurisdiction that is prepared to undertake a prosecution for such conduct. 
United States, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, 2004, Public Law 108-458, 17 December 2004, Title V, Subtitle E, § 5505(a).
United States of America
The US Military Commissions Act (2006), passed by Congress following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, amends Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
Sec. 6. Implementation of Treaty Obligations
“(a) IMPLEMENTATION OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—The acts enumerated in subsection (d) of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (b) of this section, and in subsection (c) of this section, constitute violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibited by United States law.
“(2) PROHIBITION ON GRAVE BREACHES.—The provisions of section 2441 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section, fully satisfy the obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention for the United States to provide effective penal sanctions for grave breaches which are encompassed in common Article 3 in the context of an armed conflict not of an international character. No foreign or international source of law shall supply a basis for a rule of decision in the courts of the United States in interpreting the prohibitions enumerated in subsection (d) of such section 2441. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, pp. 120 Stat. 2631 and 2632, Sec. 6(a) (1) and (2).
United States of America
In February 2007, and consequent to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the US President issued an Executive Order establishing new military commissions “to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for offenses triable by military commission”. The Executive Order stated:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109366), the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40), and section 948b(b) of title 10, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment of Military Commissions. There are hereby established military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for offenses triable by military commission as provided in chapter 47A of title 10.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) “unlawful enemy combatant” has the meaning provided for that term in section 948a(1) of title 10; and
(b) “alien” means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.
Sec. 3. Supersedure. This order supersedes any provision of the President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 57,833), that relates to trial by military commission, specifically including:
(a) section 4 of the Military Order; and
(b) any requirement in section 2 of the Military Order, as it relates to trial by military commission, for a determination of:
(i) reason to believe specified matters; or
(ii) the interest of the United States.
Sec. 4. General Provisions.
(a) This order shall be implemented in accordance with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall provide such information and assistance to the Secretary of Defense as may be necessary to implement this order and chapter 47A of title 10.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. 
United States, Executive Order 13425, Trial of Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by Military Commission, 72 Federal Register 7737, 14 February 2007.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Military Penal Code (1943), as amended, under the heading “Crimes which affect the moral strength of the army and of the naval forces”, lists a number of acts, such as the violation of the rule of humane treatment of POWs, looting, attacks against certain specific objects, for which it provides punishment. 
Uruguay, Military Penal Code, 1943, as amended, Article 58.
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code (1994), in a chapter entitled “Crimes against the peace and security of mankind”, criminalizes “violations of laws and customs of war” (Article 152), “genocide” (Article 153) and the participation of “mercenaries” in “armed conflict or military actions” (Article 154). 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Code, 1994, Articles 152–154.
Vanuatu
Vanuatu’s Geneva Conventions Act (1982) provides:
(4) Any grave breach of any of the [1949] Geneva Conventions that would, if committed in Vanuatu, be an offence under any provision of the Penal Code Act Cap. 135 or any other law shall be an offence under such provision of the Penal Code or any other law if committed outside Vanuatu.
(5) Where a person has committed an act or omission that is an offence by virtue of [the above], the offence is within the competence of and may be tried and punished by the court having jurisdiction in respect of similar offences in Vanuatu. 
Vanuatu, Geneva Conventions Act, 1982, Sections 4 and 5.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, under a chapter dealing with “crimes against international law”, provides for the punishment of the offenders of a list of certain war crimes. 
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998, as amended, Article 474.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Revised Penal Code (2000) provides for the punishment of Venezuelan nationals and foreigners who have committed certain acts “during a war between Venezuela and another nation” or who “violate the conventions or treaties [to which Venezuela is a party] in a way which entails the responsibility of the latter”. 
Venezuela, Revised Penal Code, 2000, Article 156.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2009), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states:
The Prosecutor … may ask the supervisory judge for the authorization to terminate prosecution, totally or partially, or to limit it to some of the persons that took part in the act …
The cases referring to the investigation of … war crimes … and related crimes are excluded from the application of this provision. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 37.
The Code further states:
[T]he indicted person can ask the judge … for the conditional suspension of [criminal] proceedings [in certain cases] …
The cases referring to the investigation of … war crimes … and related crimes are excluded from the application of this provision. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 42.
The Code also states:
The ordinary tribunals are responsible for exercising jurisdiction to decide on the matters submitted before it, in accordance with this Code and with special laws, as well as of penal proceedings that must be heard by the Venezuelan tribunals as provided by the Penal Code, treaties, conventions and international agreements to which the Republic is a party. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 55.
The Code further states:
The Prosecution Office will terminate the preparatory phase [of the proceedings] with the diligence required by the case.
The cases referring to the investigation of … war crimes … are excluded from the application of this provision. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 313.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2012), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states:
The Prosecutor … may ask the supervisory judge for the authorization to terminate prosecution, totally or partially, or to limit it to some of the persons that took part in the act …
The cases referring to the investigation of … war crimes are excluded from the application of this provision. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 38 and Explanatory Notes p. 3.
The Code further states:
[T]he indicted person can ask the judge … for the conditional suspension of [criminal] proceedings [in certain cases] …
The cases referring to the investigation of … war crimes are excluded from the application of this provision. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 43.
The Code also states:
The ordinary tribunals are responsible for exercising jurisdiction to decide on the matters submitted before it, in accordance with this Code and with special laws, as well as of penal proceedings that must be heard by the Venezuelan tribunals as provided by the Penal Code, treaties, conventions and international agreements to which the Republic is a party. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 56.
The Code further states:
The Prosecution Office will terminate the preparatory phase [of the proceedings] with the diligence required by the case.
Eight months after the identification of the defendant, the defendant or the victim may request the Supervisory Judge to fix a reasonable timeframe for the conclusion of the investigation. This timeframe must not be of less than thirty days and of more than forty-five.
In cases referring to the investigation of … war crimes … the reasonable timeframe mentioned in the first indention must not be of less than a year and of more than two. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 295.
The Code also states:
The accused person may … admit [having committed] the acts under trial and request that the respective penalty be immediately imposed.
In this case, the judge may reduce the applicable penalty by one third or half …
In cases related to … war crimes, the judge may only reduce the penalty by a third. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 375.
The Code further states: “[In cases of] … war crimes, the alternative penalties provided for in this Article [such as imprisonment in an open prison] can only be applied if three quarters of the penalty have already been served.” 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 488(2).
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1990) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits, inter alia, one of the offences listed under the following headings: “Violation of policy concerning soldiers killed or wounded in combat” (Article 271); “Theft or destruction of war booty” (Article 272); “Harassment of civilians” (Article 273); “Exceeding military need in performance of a mission” (Article 274); “Mistreatment of a prisoner of war or of a soldier who has surrendered” (Article 275); “Crimes against humanity” committed in time of peace or in time of war (Article 278); “War crimes”, such as “acts seriously breaching international norms contained in the treaties to which Vietnam is a party” (Article 279); and “Recruitment of mercenaries and service as a mercenary” (Article 280). 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1990, Articles 271–280.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits, inter alia, one of the offences listed under the following headings: “Concealing offences [including war crimes]” (Article 313); “Failing to denounce crimes [including war crimes] (Article 314); “Violating policies towards war wounded and/or war dead during combat” (Article 336); “Appropriating or destroying war trophies” (Article 337); “Harassing civilians” (Article 338); “Abusing military demands while performing duties” (Article 339); “Ill-treating prisoners of war and/or enemy deserters” (Article 340); “Crimes against humanity” committed in time of peace or in time of war (Article 342); “War crimes”, such as “acts in serious violation of international laws or international treaties which Viet Nam has signed or acceded to” (Article 343); and “Recruiting mercenaries or working as mercenaries” (Article 344). 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, §§ 313–314, 336–340 and 342–344.
Yemen
Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of a list of offences such as war crimes committed in a “zone of military operations” (Article 20) or “during a war [and] against persons and objects protected under the international conventions to which the Republic of Yemen is a party” (Article 21). 
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Articles 5 and 20–23.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) provides for the punishment of “any person who commits a war crime, i.e., who during the war or the enemy occupation acted as an instigator or organizer, or who … assisted or otherwise was the direct executor of [one of the acts listed thereunder]”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3).
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, in a chapter entitled “Criminal acts against humanity and international law”, provides for a list of punishable acts committed by “any person” and some of them “during war, armed conflict (or occupation)”, such as: “war crimes against civilians” (Article 142); “war crimes against the wounded and the ill” (Article 143); “war crimes against prisoners of war” (Article 144); “unlawful killing and wounding of the enemy” (Article 146); “unlawful seizure of belongings from the killed and wounded in a theatre of war” (Article 147); “use of prohibited means of combat” (Article 148); “harming a parlementaire” (Article 149); “cruel treatment of the wounded, the ill and prisoners of war” (Article 150); “unjustified delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war” (Article 150-a); “destruction of cultural and historic monuments” (Article 151); and “misuse of international emblems” (Article 153). 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Articles 142–153.
A commentary on these provisions emphasizes that these crimes can be committed in time of war, armed conflict or occupation. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code as amended, 1976, Commentary to Articles 142–144, 146, 148–151 and 153.
The Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia notes that the term “armed conflict” in this context should be interpreted as including internal conflicts.  
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 6.4.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, provides:
(1) Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of [the 1949 Geneva Conventions or the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence in terms of [the above] shall be liable … [to punishment].
(3) Where an offence in terms of this section has been committed outside Zimbabwe, the person concerned may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished therefor in any place in Zimbabwe as if the offence had been committed in that place and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that place. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1), (2) and (3).
Argentina
In the Priebke case in 1995, Argentina’s Public Prosecutor of First Instance pointed out that owing to the far-reaching implications of war crimes, the international community was obliged to hunt down and punish war criminals. 
Argentina, Court of Bariloche, Priebke case, Judgment, 23 August 1995, Point V.3.
Australia
In the Polyukhovich case before Australia’s High Court in 1991, in which the accused, charged with crimes committed during the Second World War, challenged the validity of the War Crimes Act to the imputed crimes, the Australian government argued that the War Crimes Act expressed an obligation
to search out, bring to trial and, if found guilty, to punish war criminals”. In satisfying that obligation, it was said, Australia may itself prosecute and punish or it may extradite the offender to the country where the offence is alleged to have been committed. 
Australia, High Court, Polyukhovich case, Legal Reasoning of Judge Toohey, 14 August 1991, § 16.
In his judgment, Judge Brennan found that “[i]n the present case, there is no evidence of widespread State practice which suggests that States are under a legal obligation to seek out Axis war criminals and to bring them to trial. There is no opinio juris supportive of such a rule”. 
Australia, High Court, Polyukhovich case, Legal Reasoning of Judge Brennan, 14 August 1991, § 28.
In his judgment, Judge Toohey agreed with Judge Brennan’s conclusion that there was no evidence of a customary international law that States are under a legal obligation to seek out Axis war criminals and bring them to trial. 
Australia, High Court, Polyukhovich case, Legal Reasoning of Judge Toohey, 14 August 1991, § 18.
Belgium
In the Violations of IHL in Somalia and Rwanda case in 1997, a Belgian Military Court acquitted two Belgian soldiers accused of having injured and threatened the civilian population whilst performing duties as part of the UNOSOM II peacekeeping operation in Somalia. The Court concluded that the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols were not applicable to the armed conflict in Somalia and that, therefore, the civilian population could not be granted protection on this basis. The Court also held that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions did not apply to the situation, as the Somali militia did not have an organized military structure, a responsible leadership or exercise authority over a specific part of the territory. Consequently, Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols as amended was also inapplicable. The Court further stated that the members of the UNOSOM II mission could not be considered as “combatants” since their primary task was not to fight against any of the factions, nor could they fall into the category of an “occupying force”. 
Belgium, Military Court, Violations of IHL in Somalia and Rwanda case, Judgment, 17 December 1997.
Belgium
In The Four from Butare case in 2001, a Belgian court found four Rwandan nationals individually responsible and guilty of war crimes during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The four Rwandans were arrested under Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols as amended. They were charged with violations or grave breaches of provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, as well as with violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. 
Belgium, Cour d’Assises de Bruxelles, The Four from Butare case, Judgment, 7/8 June 2001.
The judgment was confirmed by the Belgian Court of Cassation in 2002. 
Belgium, Court of Cassation, The Four from Butare case, Judgment, 9 January 2002.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2007, in the Lučić case, the Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
According to the universal jurisdiction principle, customary international humanitarian law is obligatory for each state throughout the world, regardless of whether it has ratified the appropriate international legal instruments. Therefore, each state is bound to prosecute or extradite (aut dedere aut judicare) all persons suspected of having violated customary international humanitarian law. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lučić case, Judgment, 19 September 2007, p. 61.
Canada
In the Brocklebank case in 1996, Canada’s Court Martial Appeal Court acquitted a Canadian soldier accused of torture and negligent performance of a military duty in respect of acts committed while serving as a member of the peacekeeping mission in Somalia. The Court held that there was no evidence that the soldier had formed the necessary mens rea to commit the offences charged. It was further held that no armed conflict existed in Somalia at the relevant time, nor were the Canadian forces to be considered as a party to the conflict, as they were engaged in a peacekeeping mission. As a result, the Court concluded that neither the 1949 Geneva Conventions nor the Canadian Unit Guide to the Geneva Conventions were applicable. 
Canada, Court Martial Appeal Court, Brocklebank case, Judgment, 2 April 1996; see also Court Martial Appeal Court, Brown case, Judgment, 6 January 1995, Boland case, Judgment, 16 May 1995, and Seward case, Judgment, 16 May 1995.
Canada
In 2009, in the Munyaneza case, Canada’s Superior Court of Québec found a Rwandan national who had been residing in Canada guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in committed Rwanda in 1994. The Court held:
II - TRIAL
[8] Mr. Munyaneza was charged under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (the “Act”), adopted by the Canadian Parliament in 2000 (S.C. 2000, c. 24). He is the first to be prosecuted under that legislation in Canada.
IV – THE LAW
3. THE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES ACT (“the Act”)
3.1 History
[58] On June 29, 2000, the Act was assented to and placed in Chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada for the year 2000. Its complete title is the Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
[59] The Act came into force on October 23, 2000.
[60] It is aimed at implementing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted on July 17, 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court (the “Rome Statute”).
[65] In contrast to all Canadian laws that punish offences committed on Canadian territory, the Act provides that a person who has committed abroad a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime can be prosecuted in Canada if he or she resides here.
[66] One of the avowed purposes of the Act is to fight against the impunity of war criminals, like that which existed after the Second World War. 
Canada, Superior Court, Criminal Division, Province of Québec, Munyaneza case, Judgment, 22 May 2009, §§ 8, 58–60 and 65–66.
Canada
In 2013, in the Peters case, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Board rejected an immigration request on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Libya. The Board stated:
For the purposes of this hearing section[s] 6 and 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act are the relevant [ones] as they deal with offences committed outside of Canada and I will make reference to the relevant sections in respect of this case.
Subsection 6(1) indicates that every person who either before or after coming into force of this section commits outside of Canada, a) genocide, b) a crime against humanity, or c) [a] war crime, is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.
I would also note that the Criminal Code of Canada has incorporated this definition into the legislation and it is an established principle in international [and] domestic law that people who have personally [committed] war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and other international crimes, would generally be held accountable for those crimes. 
Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Peters case, Record of an Admissibility Hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 29 January 2013, pp. 7–8.
Canada
In 2013, in the Ezokola case, Canada’s Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the applicant’s exclusion from refugee protection on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, remitting the matter to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Regarding implementation of the 1998 ICC Statute in Canada’s domestic legislation, the Court stated: “Canada is not only party to the [1998 ICC] Rome Statute, Parliament has implemented the treaty into domestic law through the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24.” 
Canada, Supreme Court, Ezokola case, Judgment and Reasons for Judgment, 19 July 2013, § 49.
Chile
In its judgment in the Pedro Poblete Córdova case in 1998, Chile’s Supreme Court stated:
Article 146 … [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] sets out the obligation of Contracting States to enact any legislation necessary to establish the appropriate penal sanctions to apply to persons who commit or order the commission of any of the grave breaches specified in the Convention; these States are also obliged to search for these persons and to bring them before their own courts and to take all measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the Convention. 
Chile, Supreme Court, Pedro Poblete Córdova case, Case No. 469-98, Judgment, 9 September 1998, § 9.
Chile
In its judgment in the Contreras Sepúlveda case in 2004, Chile’s Supreme Court stated:
Article 146 of … [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] sets out the obligation of Contracting States to enact any legislation necessary to establish the appropriate penal sanctions to apply to persons who commit or order the commission of any of the grave breaches specified in the Convention; these States are also obliged to search for these persons and to bring them before their own courts and to take all measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the Convention. 
Chile, Supreme Court, Second Chamber, Contreras Sepúlveda case, Case No. 2182-98, Judgment, 17 November 2004, § 34.
Chile
In its judgment in the Episode of San Javier case in 2006, Chile’s Court of Appeals of Santiago stated:
Article 146 … [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] stipulates the obligation of its parties to enact any legislation necessary to establish the appropriate penal sanctions to apply to persons who commit or order the commission of any of the grave breaches specified in the Convention. Likewise, the states parties are obliged to search for these persons and to bring them before their own tribunals and to take all measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the Convention. 
Chile, Court of Appeal of Santiago, Eighth Chamber, Episode of San Javier case, Case No. 2.182-1998, Judgment, 27 July 2007, § 12.
Chile
In its decision on annulment in the Víctor Raúl Pinto case in 2007, Chile’s Supreme Court stated:
Article 146 of … [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] sets out the obligation of Contracting States to enact any legislation necessary to establish the appropriate penal sanctions to apply to persons who commit or order the commission of any of the grave breaches specified in the Convention; these States are also obliged to search for these persons and to bring them before their own courts and to take all measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the Convention. 
Chile, Supreme Court, Criminal Law Chamber, Víctor Raúl Pinto case, Case No. 3125-04, Decision on Annulment, 13 March 2007, § 16.
Colombia
In 2003, in the Constitutional Case No. C-004/03, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court found that “the State [has a] duty to investigate and punish violations of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-004/03, Judgment of 20 January 2003, § 27.
Colombia
In 2005, in the Constitutional Case No. C-575/05, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
Article 6 [of Law 975 of 2005], when defining the right to justice, affirms that a State has the duty to carry out an effective investigation that is conducive to the identification, capture and punishment of persons responsible for crimes committed by members of unlawful armed groups. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-575/05, Judgment of 25 July 2005, p. 239.
Colombia
In 2005, in the Constitutional Case No. C-797/05, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court held:
[T]he State [has an] obligation … to seriously investigate punishable conduct, an obligation proportional to the magnitude of the individual and social harm caused by such punishable conduct.
Consequently, when it comes to violations of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law, the obligation to seriously investigate and punish those responsible and to restore, to the extent possible, the victims’ rights, becomes particularly important so that a State’s omission produces a situation of impunity that endangers not only the domestic legal order, but also affects its international equivalent, given the importance of the legal values at stake. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-979/05, Judgment of 26 September 2005, § 20.
Colombia
In 2006, in the Constitutional Case No. C-370/06, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated: “The human rights and international humanitarian law treaties do not specifically recognize the rights to peace, truth, justice and reparation. But they do refer to … the obligation to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-370/06, Judgment of 18 May 2006, § 4.3.1.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-095/07, the Criminal Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated that “various treaties on human rights and international humanitarian law mention … the [State’s] duty to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in order to let the truth be known”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-095/07, Judgment of 14 February 2007, pp. 34–35.
(footnote in original omitted)
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
At the international level, the State obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is found in Article 1 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and has acquired customary status.
[T]he general obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is the foundation for a number of more specific duties such as … the duty to investigate, prosecute, sanction … war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed during internal armed conflicts, a customary duty binding States because it is States through their legitimately established authorities who must effectively determine individual criminal responsibility for the commission of grave breaches of international humanitarian law. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 61.
Denmark
In the Sarić case in 1994, a Danish court found a Bosnian Croat guilty on numerous charges of war crimes. 
Denmark, High Court, Sarić case, Judgment, 25 November 1994.
France
In the Javor case in 1994, in a civil suit filed by Bosnian nationals alleging ill-treatment in a Serb-run detention camp, France’s Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris found that it had jurisdiction over the claims of war crimes. In its consideration of the charge, the Court focused on the grave breaches provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
France, Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris, Javor case, Order establishing partial lack of jurisdiction and the admissibility of a civil suit, 6 May 1994.
The Court of Appeal reversed this decision and held, inter alia, the absence of direct applicability of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
France, Court of Appeal of Paris, Javor case, Judgment, 24 November 1994.
France
In 2005, in the Guantánamo case, France’s Criminal Law Chamber of the Court of Cassation held:
Finding on the appeal lodged by:
- X… Nizar,
- X… X…,
- X… Khedija, wife Y…,
- Z…Mourad,
- Z…Chelali,
- A… Hafsa,
Civil parties,
Against the decision of the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal of Lyon of 20 May 2003, which confirmed the order of the investigating judge, refusing to hold an investigation upon their criminal complaint for counts of arrest, illegal detention, arbitrary detention, deliberate failure to end arbitrary detention;
Whereas it follows from the decision attacked and from the documents of the proceedings that Nizar X… and Mourad Z…, French nationals detained at the base at Guantánamo, constituted themselves as civil parties, because of illegal arrest, arbitrary detention and failure to end an arbitrary detention; whereas they denounce the fact of, first, having been illegally arrested due to the armed operations carried out in Afghanistan in response to the attacks perpetrated on 11 September 2001, and of, second, having been arbitrarily held in detention;
Whereas, to confirm the order of the investigating judge refusing to hold an investigation of these facts, the attacked decision, after recalling the context in which the arrest of the complainants was carried out, pronounces that the armed intervention by the United States of America “is in connection”, first, with Resolutions Nr. 1368 and 1373, unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council on 12 and 28 September 2001, and, second, Article 51 of the UN Charter; whereas the judges hold that no international convention gives French courts the competence to exercise jurisdiction over the situation complained about by the civil parties, which is the result, under the aegis of the United Nations, of a response to terrorist acts and which therefore cannot be governed by only French law, the denounced breaches moreover not being set out by any international pact or agreement or by French law; whereas they add that it is not for the French courts to exercise jurisdiction over the “military order” signed on 13 November 2001 by the President of the United States of America;
But whereas by deciding thus, by an abstract examination of the complaint only, without researching by way of a prior investigation whether the arrest and the detention conditions of the complainants – which it had to analyse from the point of view, in particular, of Geneva Convention III of 12 August 1949 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966 – fell under the provisions of Article 224-1 of the Penal Code and, as such, because of the French nationality of the said complainants, came under the competence of the French laws and courts, the investigating chamber did not justify its decision;
On these grounds,
[The Court of Cassation r]enders null and void, in all its provisions, the aforementioned decision of the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal of Lyon of 20 May 2003, and, in order for it to be judged anew, in accordance with the law,
refers the case and the parties to the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris. 
France, Court of Cassation, Guantánamo case, Appeal Nr. 03-84652, Judgment, 4 January 2005.
France
In 2007, in the Disappeared of the Beach case, France’s Criminal Law Chamber of the Court of Cassation held:
Finding on the appeals lodged by:
- the International Federation for Human Rights Fédération International des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme – FIDH];
- the French League for the Defence of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [Ligue Française pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen or Ligue des droits de l’Homme - LDH];
- the association Congolese Observer of Human Rights [Observatoire Congolais des Droits de l’Homme – OCDH];
- Pascal Miena Youlou,
- Ghislain Matenbele,
- Aubin Mackaya,
- Blanchard Mouele,
- Linot Bardin Duval Tsieno,
- the association The Disappeared of the Beach [Les Disparus du Beach,
- Marcel Touanga,
- the association Survival Survie;
Civil parties,
Against the decision of the first section of the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris of 22 November 2004, which, in the investigation upon their complaint against unnamed person on counts of crimes against humanity, acts of torture and abductions of persons, pronounced on a request for annulment of parts of the proceedings;
Considering Articles 689, 689-1, 689-2, 40, 41 and 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code;
Whereas, first, according to the first three of these Articles, French courts can prosecute and try any person, if in France, who, outside the territory of the Republic, has rendered himself guilty of torture in the sense of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted in New York on 10 December 1984;
Whereas, second, the Prosecutor of the Republic, from the three latter of these Articles above, receives the right to request the opening of an investigation in view of any information of which he is the recipient, and whereas the introductory submission can only be annulled if its form does not satisfy the essential conditions of its legal existence;
Whereas it follows from the attacked decision that the International Federation for Human Rights, the French League for the Defence of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Congolese Observer of Human Rights have lodged a complaint against Denis Sassou N’Guesso, President of the Republic of the Congo, Pierre Oba, minister of the interior, Norbert Dabira, inspector-general of the armed forces, Blaise Adoua, commander of the Republican Guard, for arbitrary arrests, acts of torture and enforced disappearances, taken place from May to July 1999, concerning displaced persons who returned to the Republic of the Congo via the river port of Brazzaville, called “The Beach”, following an agreement defining a humanitarian corridor under the auspices of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees;
Whereas the Prosecutor of the Republic of Paris transmitted the complaint to the public prosecution department of Meaux, territorially competent due to the known domicile of Norbert Dabira …; whereas, the preliminary investigation having verified the domicile of Norbert Dabira and his family at that address, the Prosecutor of the Republic requested the opening of an investigation on counts of crimes against humanity, acts of torture and abductions of persons;
Whereas, on 5 April 2004, the Prosecutor of the Republic presented a request for the purpose of the annulment of the public acts carried out in relation to Jean-François N’Dengue, Pierre Oba and Blaise Adoua, on the ground that the introductory submission improperly made against unnamed person could, in fact, only envisage Norbert Dabira, the only person likely to have participated in the denounced acts and with regard to whom it was established that he has a domicile on the national territory;
Whereas, in order to annul not only the parts aimed at in the prosecution’s request, but also the introductory submission and the entirety of the subsequent proceedings, the [Court of Appeal’s] decision pronounces in the form of the grounds reproduced in the appeal;
But whereas, by determining thus, while, first, the introductory submission, duly dated and signed by a prosecutor, aimed at annexed preliminary inquiry minutes, and, second, the persons suspected of having committed the acts denounced were designated by name, and, finally, there were, at the moment when the prosecutions began, sufficient elements on the presence of at least one of them in France, Norbert Dabira having his ordinary residence on the French territory where he is settled with his family, the investigating chamber misread the meaning and the impact of the Articles mentioned above and the principles recalled above;
On these grounds:
[The Court of Cassation d]eclares null and void, in all its provisions, the decision noted above of the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal of Paris of 22 November 2004, and in order for it to be judged anew, in accordance with the law;
refers the case and the parties to the investigating chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles. 
France, Court of Cassation, “Disappeared of the Beach” case, Appeal Nr. 04-87245, Judgment, 10 January 2007.
Germany
In the Djajić case in 1997 involving a national of the former Yugoslavia, Germany’s Supreme Court of Bavaria referred to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and the grave breaches regime. It considered the conflict to be an international conflict (in June 1992) and regarded the victims as “protected persons” in the meaning of Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. The accused was found guilty of complicity in 14 counts of murder and 1 count of attempted murder. 
Germany, Supreme Court of Bavaria (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht), Djajić case, Judgment, 23 May 1997.
The Court based its jurisdiction on Article 6(9) of the German Penal Code which extends the jurisdiction of German courts to acts which are committed abroad and which are prosecuted in Germany on the basis of an international agreement binding on Germany. It also stated that the prosecution of war criminals was “in the interest of the international community as a whole” and not only in the particular interest of Germany. It further noted: “Article 146 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV], in its paragraph 2, obliges each State party to the Convention ‘to search for persons alleged to have committed … such grave breaches’. It has to ‘bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts’”. 
Germany, Supreme Court of Bavaria (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht), Djajić case, Judgment, 23 May 1997.
Germany
In the Jorgić case before Germany’s Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf in 1997, a Bosnian Serb was tried for acts committed in 1992 in Bosnia and Herzegovina which were punishable under the German Penal Code. In its judgment, the Court referred, inter alia, to Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. It based its jurisdiction on Article 6(1) and (9) of the Penal Code, which criminalizes genocide and acts the prosecution of which was made compulsory under the terms of an international agreement, and stated: “Geneva Convention IV serves as a basis for penal prosecution”. Moreover, the Court referred to Article 146, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV under which, as the Court confirmed, the States party to the Convention “have engaged to bring persons who are alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, before their own courts, regardless of their nationality”. The accused was found guilty of complicity in genocide, in conjunction with dangerous bodily harm, deprivation of liberty and murder. 
Germany, Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf), Jorgić case, Judgment, 26 September 1997.
In 1999, the Federal Court of Justice upheld the conviction for the most part. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Jorgić case (Bundesgerichtshof), Judgment, 30 April 1999.
In its judgment in 2000, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed that the accused could be tried by German courts and under German penal law. Moreover, it stated:
A norm of international customary law prohibiting the extension of German competence to legislate in criminal matters … was at variance with Art. VI of the [1948] Genocide Convention. With regard to the principle of non-interference recognised in international customary and international treaty law (Art. 2(1) of the United Nations Charter), the Federal Constitutional Court required that jurisdiction over events occurring in the territory of another State and therefore outside German territorial sovereignty be predicated on a meaningful link … Whether such a link exists depends on the subject matter. In criminal law, a meaningful link is constituted not only by the principles of territoriality, protection, active and passive personality, and criminal representation, but also by the principle of universal jurisdiction … The principle of universal jurisdiction applied to conduct deemed to constitute a threat to the protected interests of the international community. It therefore differs from the principle of criminal representation, codified in Article 7(2)(2) of the [German Penal Code], in that the conduct does not need to be punishable by the law of the place where it occurred and no failure to extradite is required. 
Germany, Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), Jorgić case, Decision, 12 December 2000.
Germany
In the Sokolović case before Germany’s Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf in 1999, a Bosnian Serb accused of acts committed in 1992 in Bosnia and Herzegovina was sentenced for complicity in genocide, deprivation of liberty and dangerous bodily injury. The Court held that, according to Article 6(9) of the German Penal Code and in connection with the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, German domestic courts had jurisdiction over grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions committed in the course of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. 
Germany, Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf), Sokolović case, Judgment, 29 November 1999.
In 2001, the Federal Court of Justice upheld this judgment and referred, inter alia, to Articles 146 and 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and provisions of the German Penal Code. It held: “A duty to prosecute arises from [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] at least when an international armed conflict takes place and when the criminal offences fulfil the requirements of a ‘grave breach’ in the meaning of Article 147 of this Convention.” 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Sokolović case, Judgment, 21 February 2001.
Referring to the apparent requirement of a specific link to Germany which, according to the judgment in the trial of first instance, had been established in the case and therefore gave it jurisdiction, the Federal Court of Justice moreover noted that not only had the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf correctly found such link to be established, but that:
The Senate is nevertheless inclined not to require such additional link, in any case with regard to [Article 6(9) of the German Penal Code] … Indeed, the prosecution and punishment in accordance with German penal law by the Federal Republic of Germany, acting in fulfilment of an internationally binding obligation accepted under agreement between States, of an act committed abroad by a foreigner against foreigners, can hardly be said to be an infringement of the principle of non-interference. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Sokolović case, Judgment, 21 February 2001.
However, the Federal Court of Justice stated that in this case it did not fall to it to reach a decision in the matter. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Sokolović case, Judgment, 21 February 2001.
Germany
In the Kusljić case in 1999, Germany’s Supreme Court of Bavaria tried a Bosnian national for crimes committed during 1992 in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment for, inter alia, genocide in conjunction with six counts of murder. The Court found that a specific link to Germany, necessary for the prosecution under German penal law of acts committed abroad by a non-German national and against non-German victims, was established. 
Germany, Supreme Court of Bavaria (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht), Kusljić case, Judgment, 15 December 1999.
In 2001, the Federal Court of Justice revised this judgment into a life sentence for, inter alia, six counts of murder. It considered the acts of the accused to be grave breaches in the meaning of Articles 146 and 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. Referring to its judgment of the same day in the Sokolović case, the Court ruled that German courts, on the ground of Article 6(9) of the German Penal Code, had jurisdiction over grave breaches in the meaning of Articles 146 and 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Kusljić case, Decision, 21 February 2001.
Germany
In February 2005, in the Abu Ghraib case, the Federal Prosecutor General at Germany’s Federal Court of Justice issued a press release, which stated”:
On 30 November 2004, attorney-at-law …, filed a criminal complaint, on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights, … New York, United States of America, as well as four Iraqi citizens.
The complaint, amended on 29 January 2005, is directed against Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United States of America, and 10 named persons as well as further unnamed persons, who are alleged to have participated in criminal offences according to the [German] International Crimes Code …
The criminal complaint alleges that the persons reported therein rendered themselves liable to prosecution as civilian and military superiors of directly acting persons, according to Sections 4, 13, 14 of the International Crimes Code. They allegedly gave instructions to subordinates on the treatment of detainees, which contravene internationally applicable protective provisions, inter alia the UN Torture Convention. Despite knowledge of ill-treatment, they allegedly failed to take measures to prevent further assaults by their subordinates and to repress ill-treatment already committed.
The criminal complaint is not pursued.
It is not necessary to examine whether the matter raised by the initiators of the criminal complaint is capable of giving rise to an initial suspicion which would justify the initiation of criminal investigation proceedings. Likewise, it is not necessary to examine to what extent immunity provisions prevent the initiation of criminal investigation proceedings. The balancing assessment as required by Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code has the result that in view of the subsidiarity principle there is no room for the German criminal investigation authorities to become active.
It is true, the principle of universal jurisdiction does indeed apply to the crimes threatened with punishment in the International Crimes Code (Section 1 International Crimes Code). Accordingly, no link to [Germany] whatsoever is required for the application of the International Crimes Code. However, the principle of universal jurisdiction does not automatically legitimate an unrestricted criminal prosecution. It is the aim of the International Crimes Code to close gaps in criminal liability and criminal prosecution. This, however, has to take place before the background of non-interference in the affairs of foreign States. This also follows from Article 17 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has to be seen in the regulation context of the International Crimes Code. Accordingly, the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction is subsidiary to the competence of the State where the conduct in question occurred or of which the perpetrator is a national; the International Criminal Court can only act if the national States primarily competent to adjudicate are “unwilling or unable” to carry out the prosecution. For the same reasons, a third State may not review the legal practice of foreign states based on its own standards, correct it in the individual case, or even replace it.
The national legislator of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken subsidiarity into account not by revoking the basic decision for the principle of universal jurisdiction, but with the differentiated procedural regulation of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which came into force at the same time as the International Crimes Code … The Statute of the International Criminal Court is the guideline in the interpretation and application of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the obligation to prosecute criminal offences under the International Crimes Code is regulated in tiers:
Primarily, the State in which the conduct in question occurred and the home State of the perpetrator and victim, as well as a competent international court of justice, are competent to prosecute … In contrast, the competence of uninvolved third States is to be understood as a subsidiary competence, which is meant to avoid impunity, but, apart from that, not to push aside inappropriately the primarily competent jurisdictions … Only if criminal prosecution by primarily competent States or an international criminal court is not or cannot be ensured, for example because the perpetrator has absconded from criminal prosecution by fleeing abroad, the subsidiary competence of the German criminal prosecution authorities comes into action. This tiered approach is justified by the special interest in criminal prosecution of the home State of perpetrator and victim and because the primarily competent jurisdictions usually are closer to the evidence …
The conditions of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code are fulfilled. Based on these principles, the United States of America as the home State of the persons reported is primarily competent for the criminal prosecution.
The reported acts were committed outside the territorial scope of the Criminal Procedure Code in the sense of Section 153(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Also taking into consideration the matters raised by the initiators of the criminal complaint, the Federal Republic of Germany is insofar neither the place where the perpetrator acted nor the place in which the result of the act occurred (Section 9 of the Criminal Code).
There is no indication that a German national participated in the commission of the reported offence as a perpetrator (Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 2, paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code) or that a German national was a victim of the reported offences (Section 153(f), paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
The requirement of prosecution elsewhere (Section 153(f), paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is fulfilled. The term prosecution of the offence must be interpreted in relation to the complex as a whole and not in relation to an individual suspect and his specific contribution to the offence. According to the wording of the provision, the offence as a whole is decisive. Such an interpretation of the term offence follows from the Rome Statute, which the International Crimes Code implements. Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Statute expressly mentions the term “situation in which one or more crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court appear to have been committed”. In which order and by which means the primarily competent State investigates against an individual within a complex as a whole, must, because of the subsidiarity principle, be left to that State. This is different only if investigations are merely in pretence or are carried out without a genuine will to prosecute …
Here, nothing indicates that the authorities and courts of the United States of America have dispensed with penal law measures regarding the assaults described in the criminal complaint, or will do so. Several proceedings regarding the incidents in Abu Ghraib against participants in the offence … have already been carried out. By what means and at what time investigations against further potential suspects in relation to the assaults described in the criminal complaint are carried out, must be left to the judicial authorities of the United States of America.
This means for the situation reported:
Insofar as the reported persons are not present in the area of application of the International Crimes Code and are not anticipated to be present there, the conditions of Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code are fulfilled.
With regard to the reported persons present in the Federal Republic of Germany or anticipated to be present there, the criminal complaint is not to be pursued in accordance with Section 153(f), paragraph 2, sentence 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The reported persons who, according to the criminal complaint …, are present in Germany, are stationed in US army bases in Germany as members of the US army. They are subject to a special duty of obedience towards their employer, also as regards their presence. The United States of America as prosecuting State therefore have unrestricted access to these persons. Even though stationed in Germany, they are therefore at the American judiciary’s disposal just as if they were present in the United States. A gap of criminal responsibility, to be avoided in accordance with the principle of universal jurisdiction, does not exist, which is why there is no room for the subsidiary competence of the German criminal prosecution authorities. This also follows from Section 153(f), paragraph 2, sentence 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, according to which prosecution can be dispensed with if extradition to the prosecuting State is admissible and intended. This must apply even more if the prosecuting State, like in the present case, has unrestricted access to a suspect, an extradition therefore not being necessary.
Similar considerations apply with regard to a temporarily limited presence to be anticipated in the area of application of the International Crimes Code, if investigations of the complex as a whole are carried out in the State which has priority rights. Also in that case, the reported persons would not be out of reach of a criminal prosecution by the judicial authorities of the United States.
There are no indications, which could justify the initiation of investigations despite the fulfilment of the conditions of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the most, due to the subsidiarity principle, only such measures could be considered which the US authorities, primarily competent to examine the incidents, could not take themselves due to factual or legal obstacles. Here, such obstacles are not apparent. 
Germany, Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice, Abu Ghraib case, Press release, 10 February 2005.
In September 2005, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart dismissed a motion for judicial decision against the Federal Prosecutor General’s decision of February 2005 not to initiate investigations concerning the reported incidents in Abu Ghraib/Iraq. The Higher Regional Court found the motion to be inadmissible, holding that, according to Section 172, paragraph 2, sentence 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code, proceedings to force criminal prosecution were not admissible against decisions to dispense with prosecuting offences under the International Crimes Code. The conditions for the application of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code had been fulfilled, and no legal fault could be found with the way the Federal Prosecutor General had exercised the discretion within the framework of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code when deciding to dispense with prosecuting the reported incidents. 
Germany, Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart, Abu Ghraib case, Decision, 13 September 2005, pp. 3–9.
Germany
In 2007, in the Abu Grhaib/Iraq and Guantánamo Bay/Cuba case, the Federal Prosecutor General at Germany’s Federal Court of Justice issued a press release, which stated:
I. On 14 November 2006 – last amended on 28 March 2007 – attorney-at-law …, on behalf of altogether 44 organizations and individuals, filed a criminal complaint against the former Secretary of Defense of the United States of America, Donald H. Rumsfeld, 13 individually named and further unnamed citizens of the United States, based on the suspicion of violations against Sections 4, 8, 13 and 14 of the [German] International Crimes Code and against Sections 211 et seq., 223 et seq., 239 et seq. of the [German] Criminal Code in conjunction with Section 6, No. 9 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with the UN Torture Convention as well as Article 129 of Geneva Convention III on the treatment of prisoners of war.
Already on 30 November 2004, attorney-at-law …, on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights and four Iraqi citizens, had filed a criminal complaint against Donald H. Rumsfeld – at that time still the incumbent Secretary of Defense – and further persons, who were alleged to have participated in criminal offences based on the International Crimes Code … By decision of 10 February 2005, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office dispensed with prosecution in accordance with Section 153(f) of the [German] Criminal Procedure Code … An ensuing motion for judicial decision was dismissed by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart on 13 September 2005.
Object of the current criminal complaint are incidents in the prison complex Abu Ghraib/Iraq and in the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay/Cuba. Insofar as the report concerns incidents in the prison complex Abu Ghraib, the vast majority of them have already been reported on 30 November 2004. Beyond the incidents described at that time, the initiators of the criminal complaint have now additionally reported further incidents, in particular such which allegedly occurred after 8 January 2004. Furthermore, detainees in the US detention camp in Guantánamo Bay/Cuba were allegedly ill-treated.
The reason given for the filing of the criminal complaint in the Federal Republic of Germany is essentially that in the United States of America no criminal prosecution against the reported persons in view of the incidents in Iraq and Guantánamo Bay were taking place, from which one could conclude the unwillingness of the authorities there to carry out criminal law investigations against these persons. Only members of lower military ranks had been held criminally liable for the incidents in Iraq, and had been imposed with, in the view of the initiators of the report, far too “insignificant” sentences or even only with disciplinary punishments. On the other hand, those actually responsible, who had planned, ordered or at least knowingly tolerated und justified a “systematic” ill-treatment of detainees, had all gone unpunished. Prosecution by the International Criminal Court were out of the question, because the United States of America had withdrawn the signature of the Rome Statute and had excluded a ratification. The legal provisions of the International Crimes Code, in particular the principle of universal jurisdiction enshrined in its Section 1, forced the competent German criminal prosecution authorities to initiate investigation proceedings against the reported persons. The Federal Republic of Germany therefore had to take on the criminal prosecution, acting for the international community of States, in order to prevent the reported acts from going unatoned.
II. The initiation of investigation proceedings is dispensed with in accordance with Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Insofar as incidents have been reported which allegedly occurred in Iraq between 15 September 2003 and 8 January 2004, the decision of 10 February 2005 remains applicable.
1. Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows to dispense with the initiation of investigation proceedings for offences committed abroad in the sense of Section 153(c), paragraph 1, no. 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if a suspect is neither present in Germany, nor is such a presence to be anticipated. This is the case here:
a) Due to a lack of a German place of result or place of action in the sense of Section 2 of the International Crimes Code in conjunction with Section 9 of the Criminal Code, the reported allegations are offences committed abroad.
In none of the reported cases have the acts of which the reported persons are accused caused results of crime elements in the sense of Sections 8 et seq. of the International Crimes Code in Germany. Nothing indicates that persons affected by the acts described in the criminal complaint were transferred from Iraq or Afghanistan via the Federal Republic of Germany to Cuba/Guantánamo – with the consequence of a potential “transit place” in Germany.
Furthermore, there are no facts-based indications of a place of action in Germany.
The mere stationing of US troops is – contrary to the view of the initiators of the criminal complaint – no more a preparation of the reported war crimes than is the guarding of US military installations in Germany by German soldiers with the consequence of US soldiers being available for a deployment in Iraq. The same applies to the training of soldiers for deployment in Iraq. Whether such training has actually taken place in Germany and has been “inadequate” with regard to international humanitarian law, as claimed by the initiators of the criminal complaint, need not be decided. Also an inadequate preparation for the care for prisoners of war is not part of a preparation of criminal actions in the sense of Section 8 of the International Crimes Code. There is no general rule of experience according to which soldiers who are inadequately prepared for military operations and informed of the content of the Geneva Conventions always or even only regularly commit the alleged war crimes. The claim of the initiators of the criminal complaint that it had been conveyed to the US soldiers in Germany later employed in Iraq that the Geneva Conventions could be disregarded is purely speculative. There are no facts indicating this. Granting overflight rights or allowing stopovers on German ground, to which the initiators of the criminal complaint also refer, is no criminal law-regulated preparation of the reported incidents – neither of those in Guantánamo Bay, nor of those in Iraq. The same applies to the employment of German nationals in the training of Iraqis abroad.
Finally, there is nothing concretely indicating that, from Germany, orders for the independent commission of acts contrary to the International Crimes Code were given or concepts on the application of methods of detainee treatment inconsistent with Geneva Convention [III] developed. In this respect, the factor alone that individual reported persons were temporarily stationed in US American facilities in the Federal Republic of Germany does not suffice.
b) Neither the reported persons nor other possible suspects according to the criminal complaint are currently present in the Federal Republic of Germany. Such a presence is also not to be anticipated.
None of the persons noted in the criminal complaint with a place of residence in Germany is still stationed in Germany or resident there. There are no concrete indications that the presence of a reported person or a possible suspect according to the criminal complaint is to be anticipated. Such indications can already be excluded if – like here – on the basis of the data available in Germany no links or relations of a professional, personal or family nature in Germany are known. Contrary to the view of the initiators of the criminal complaint, the merely theoretical possibility of an entry into Germany or a country in which the reported persons are sought on the basis of a European or international arrest warrant is not sufficient. If an obligation to prosecute were already presumed when such a future presence of a foreign suspect merely cannot be excluded, Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 and paragraph 2, sentence 1, no. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code would effectively be void in the majority of cases, because “preliminary investigations” on the current and future travel movements of people living abroad are not very promising. The purpose intended with Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely to avoid fruitless investigation in cases which have no link to Germany and therefore do not expect a noteworthy investigation success, could not be realized.
2. The balancing assessment as required by Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code has the result that there is no room for the German criminal investigation authorities to become active.
a) It is the purpose of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code to take into account the consequences which result for the German justice system from the application of the principle of universal jurisdiction. Speaking in favour of conducting investigations is, as a matter of principle, the consideration that a worldwide criminal prosecution of international law crimes, with as few gaps as possible, is to be ensured. On the other hand, the danger is to be countered that initiators of criminal complaints select certain States as places of prosecution, which have – like Germany here – no direct relation whatsoever with the reported actions, just because of their international law-friendly criminal law (so called “forum shopping”), thereby forcing investigation authorities to conduct extensive but ultimately unproductive investigations. Since, according to Section 1 of the International Crimes Code, every crime under the International Crimes Code falls (also) under German material jurisdiction, Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code, on a procedural level, provides a corrective for the prosecution authorities to counter overburdening caused by ineffective investigations. Consequently, Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in particular cases, allows to dispense with the prosecution of offences committed abroad, whether another jurisdiction is prepared to prosecute or not. This applies in particular if there are no prospects of an accused person actually being put to trial in Germany. This purpose must guide the exercise of discretion. The view of the initiators of the criminal complaint that the Federal Republic of Germany must become active in representation of the “world community” and therefore in any case initiate investigations does, in contrast, not hold.
b) Circumstances which could speak for the initiation of investigations, even though the conditions of Section 153(f), paragraph 1, sentence 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code are fulfilled, are not given. They would only be given if, with investigations of the German prosecution authorities, a noteworthy investigation success could be achieved, in order to prepare a criminal prosecution at a later point (be it in Germany or abroad). This is however lacking here.
In order to investigate possible allegations, investigations on-site and in the United States of America would be unavoidable. Since German investigation authorities do not have executive powers abroad, this could only take place by means of international legal assistance. Such requests, however, seem – especially when considering the legal and security situation in Iraq – obviously futile.
A loss of evidence in consequence of the non-action of the German criminal prosecution authorities need not be feared. This is not changed by the circumstance that according to the initiators of the criminal complaint witnesses from the United States of America are prepared to give information to the German investigation authorities. It is not apparent that they could give more information here than they could give through the attorney representing the initiators of the criminal complaint. The circumstance that in the context of US American investigations information by these persons was not attached the importance wished for by the initiators of the complaint does not compel the initiation of investigation proceedings in Germany. The view that such information nevertheless had to be documented and systematically processed in a German investigation, even though due to the reasons given above neither successful investigation proceedings in Germany nor the reception of international legal assistance requests are to be expected, does not hold. This would in effect result in purely symbolic investigations which by necessity – due to the lack of comprehensive investigation facilities – would have to remain unilateral. Such investigations, however, were – also as regards international law crimes – expressly not wanted by the German legislator, the more so as this would unnecessarily claim the criminal prosecution resources, anyway limited as regards personnel and funds, to the detriment of other, promising criminal prosecutions. The (criminal) law treatment of potential violations of the prohibition on torture in Guantánamo Bay/Cuba or in connection with the Iraq war therefore remains the task of the justice system of the United States of America, responsible and competent to do this. 
Germany, Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice, Abu Ghraib/Iraq and Guantánamo Bay/Cuba case, Press release, 27 April 2007.
Germany
In 2009, in the Roadblock case, Germany’s Office of the Prosecutor Zweibrücken stated:
The proceedings concerning X., Y. and Z. are discontinued pursuant to § 170 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
For the following reasons:
1. The following facts are to be presumed:
At the time the act was committed, the accused were soldiers of the Bundeswehr [Germany’s armed forces] deployed to Afghanistan as part of the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] operation.
In order to ensure that the examination [of whether explosive devices had been placed on a road] could be carried out in a timely and safe way, the accused X. gave the order to block the road with tanks.
The accused also ordered to warn and stop cars approaching the road block …
At about 20.30 o’clock a Toyota Super Van approached the road block at high speed. The driver of the car seemed unimpressed by the road block. Even though the laser pointer of a long firearm was being pointed at his car’s windscreen, the Toyota continued to speed towards the tanks. Also the firing of a red flare … by the accused, Sergeant (Oberfeldwebel) Y., did not prompt the driver to stop or at least slow down. Rather, he continued to approach the road block at the same speed and approached the tanks by overtaking cars who had already been waiting at the road block.
Therefore, the accused Y. ordered the accused Z. to fire a warning shot. As a result, Z directed his machine gun above the car and fired in the air. Since the car still did not slow down, Sergeant Y. gave the order “fire”; at this point in time the accused assumed that the driver was a suicide attacker who intended to drive into the road block and cause an explosion.
Consequently, the accused Z. fired at the vehicle. …
The vehicle, which had been hit by at least six bullets of a 7.62mm calibre, slowed down, made a left turn to the parking lot of a petrol station and stopped.
There were six Afghan civilians in the car. They did not carry weapons and were taking a relative’s body to Badakhshan province. … Five people in the car were injured by the bullets … There were no explosives in the Toyota.
3. These facts warrant that the proceedings against all accused be discontinued in accordance with § 170 para. 2 StPO [Criminal Procedure Code] because of the lack of a sufficient initial suspicion that a crime has been committed.
The following has to be noted with respect to the accused X.:
He is not to be held criminally responsible for attempted manslaughter, causing bodily harm by dangerous means and destruction of property.
The setting up of the roadblock and the instructions on how to proceed with approaching cars were lawful.
The legal basis is to be found in Art. 24 (2) GG [Basic Law] in combination with the submission of the Federal Government of 7 October 7 2008 … and the decision of the Bundestag of 16 October 2008 …
In the submission of the Federal Government referred to above it is noted under number 7 with respect to the status and rights of armed forces on mission in Afghanistan: “The international security assistance force is authorized to use all necessary means including the use of military force to enforce its mandate based on [UN Security Council] Resolution 1833 (2008).” The mandate of the international security assistance force based on this resolution and earlier ones is “to support the Afghan authorities in maintaining security in the area of operations in order for the Afghan state organs as well as UN personnel and other international civilian personnel to be able to exercise their functions in a secure environment.” …
Thus the order to set up roadblocks and the instructions on how to proceed with approaching cars were lawful. Because of prior monitored activities of suspicious Afghans it was feared that they had prepared an attack with explosive devices. These regular terrorist attacks endanger the aim of the mandate, i.e. to ensure that the relevant state organs and persons can work in a secure environment. A prompt, safe and reliable verification of suspicious facts which could only be ensured through the setting up of a roadblock and the relevant orders of the accused X was therefore in accordance with the mandate. The order further contained detailed instructions on how to proceed in case of approaching cars. Thus, the conflicting interests of the passengers of an approaching car and the mission to implement the mandate were considered in an adequate manner.
There are doubts whether firing into the Toyota’s passenger area was justified.
The accused Y. and Z. were – together with the other soldiers who set up the road block – in tanks. The Toyota’s passengers were unarmed. There were no explosives in the car.
Y and Z are not criminally responsible based on the notion of putative self-defence … Putative self-defence exists where a person wrongly assumes there is an emergency situation and defends himself or others in a way that would be lawful if the situation of emergency actually existed. Consequently, there is no criminal intent.
The conditions of putative self-defence are fulfilled in this context. The accused Y. and Z. wrongly believed to be confronted with a suicide attacker.
The Toyota continued to approach the road block without slowing down despite the light signal on the windshield, the firing of flare and a warning shot into the air. Based on these facts and assuming an imminent attack, the order to fire and firing the shots at the front of the car were justified under § 32 StGB [Penal Code]. The same is true for the shots fired against the front area of the Toyota after its driver, undeterred by the previous measures, continued driving towards the tanks. 
Germany, Office of the Prosecutor Zweibrücken, Roadblock case, Decision, 23 January 2009, §§ 1 and 3.
Germany
In 2009, in the Kunduz Checkpoint case, the Senior Public Prosecutor at Germany’s Office of the Prosecutor Frankfurt (Oder) issued a press release, which stated:
The investigation proceedings against a 28-year-old sergeant (Oberfeldwebel) of the Bundeswehr in the context of the killing of civilians in Kunduz/Afghanistan have been discontinued because there no longer is a founded suspicion that a crime has been committed.
On 28 August 2008, the accused was deployed as a gunner on an operational vehicle (type “Dingo”) of the Bundeswehr [the German armed forces] in order to protect comrades and about 20–25 Afghan soldiers and policemen who were establishing a checkpoint. At about 21.50 o’clock, two vehicles approached the soldiers on a dirt road at high speed in close proximity to one another.
As a result [of the investigations], it can be presumed that the accused briefly fired his machine gun (15 bullets), thereby killing one woman and two children and injuring four other persons.
Criminal responsibility for crimes concerning wilful killing or injury can be excluded not least because the accused acted under the assumption that he and his comrades were being attacked by the approaching vehicles.
Criminal responsibility for negligent killing or injury had also to be considered, but had to be excluded because the necessary violation of due diligence was lacking. The accused cannot be considered to have violated his obligations by assuming that a situation of self-defence existed.
In essence the following circumstances are of relevance: The accused had to make a decision in a fraction of seconds. There was a potentially dangerous situation because various attacks against ISAF [International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan] forces had occurred in the summer of 2008. The approaching vehicles were driving suspiciously fast and close together. Despite the soldiers’ visual and acoustic signals, they did not stop initially but continued with screeching tires towards the clearly identifiable soldiers. Because of the swirled up dust, visibility was very limited. In addition, the German and Afghan forces fired various warning shots as most of the persons present considered the vehicles as potentially dangerous. When the accused saw that a comrade was lying on the ground and when he heard further shots, he presumed an attack against his comrade and shot at the vehicles. It is to be assumed that he shot at their license plates.
In particular, the reconstruction of the events at a barrack in Bavaria showed that the accused cannot be considered to have committed any acts to which criminal law would apply. It has been established that the view from the operational vehicle was very limited, and that the other environmental conditions (darkness, dust) and other aforementioned conditions contributed to the interpretation of the drivers’ conduct as an attack. 
Germany, Office of the Prosecutor Frankfurt (Oder), Senior Public Prosecutor, Kunduz Checkpoint case, Press release, 19 May 2009.
Germany
In 2010, in the Boere case, Germany’s Regional Court of Aachen found Heinrich Boere, a German national, guilty of murder because he shot three Dutch nationals in 1941 during the German occupation of the Netherlands. The Court summarized the facts of the case as follows:
[A]t the beginning of the war between Germany and the Netherlands, the accused joined the Waffen-SS [Armed SS]. He was a member of the Feldmeijer commando of the Germanic SS in the Netherlands when the crime was committed. … Together with other members of the Feldmeijer commando, the accused was tasked with the killing of [the three Dutch nationals] Fritz Hubert Ernst Bi., Teunis de G. und Frans Willem Ku. In the views of the accused, the killing of the pharmacist Bi. was an act of revenge and the individuals G. and Ku. were members of the resistance movement against whom countermeasures had to be taken because of a previous attack [against the German occupying forces]. 
Germany, Regional Court of Aachen, Boere case, Judgment, 23 March 2010, § 233.
The Court held:
234
The three murders cannot be considered as lawful acts of war because they were not committed by members of the armed military forces but by members of the Feldmeijer commando with support from the SD [German security service] and because when the victims were shot, they were not resistance fighters engaged in combat or in escape or, at least, manifesting a readiness to engage in combat.
235
Neither can the murders be considered as lawful war reprisals because the conditions for permitted war reprisals under the international law in force at the time are not met. 
Germany, Regional Court of Aachen, Boere case, Judgment, 23 March 2010, §§ 234–235.
Germany
In 2010, in the Fuel Tankers case, the Federal Prosecutor General at Germany’s Federal Court of Justice investigated whether war crimes or other crimes under domestic law had been committed in the course of an airstrike which was ordered by a colonel (Oberst) of the German armed forces against two tankers transporting fuel for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan stolen by the Taliban near Kunduz and which resulted in the death of a number of civilians. The Federal Prosecutor General stated:
Pursuant to § 170 para. 2 StPO [Penal Procedure Code], the investigation proceedings which were initiated by the order of 12 March 2010 against Colonel (Oberst) Klein and Company Sergeant Major (Hauptfeldwebel) Wilhelm due to suspected offences under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] and other offences are to be terminated as a result of the investigations conducted and based on the sources of information set out hereafter and on the reasons given in detail hereafter. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Federal Prosecutor General, Fuel Tankers case, Decision, 16 April 2010, p. 1.
The Federal Prosecutor General also stated:
II.
Criminal liability under the International Crimes Code (VStGB)
The International Crimes Code applies in the present case because the characteristic element of the crimes listed in paragraph 2 of the Code (“war crimes”), namely the connection with an armed conflict, in this case a non-international armed conflict, are fulfilled. However, Colonel (Oberst) Klein does not incur criminal liability under the International Crimes Code because his conduct did not fulfil the other elements of the crimes. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Federal Prosecutor General, Fuel Tankers case, Decision, 16 April 2010, p. 51.
The Federal Prosecutor General further stated:
Company Sergeant Major (Hauptfeldwebel) Wilhelm is not criminally responsible. His participation in the acts relevant for the present case consisted of supporting Colonel (Oberst) Klein in the preparation and implementation of Klein’s order to attack. Since the conduct of Colonel (Oberst) Klein did not violate criminal law … , criminal responsibility of Sergeant Major (Hauptfeldwebel) Wilhelm must equally be excluded. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Federal Prosecutor General, Fuel Tankers case, Decision, 16 April 2010, p. 69.
Germany
In 2010, in the DRC case, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice was called upon to decide whether to remand in pre-trial custody a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo who had been living in Germany. The Court summarized the facts of the case as follows:
The subject of the arrest warrant is the allegation that as the president of the paramilitary militia organisation “Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda” [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda] (hereafter FDLR), which is operating in the provinces North Kivu and South Kivu of the Democratic Republic of [the] Congo … , the accused is criminally liable because he is responsible as superior for crimes against humanity and war crimes and as the ringleader of a terrorist group abroad. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, DRC case, Decision, 17 June 2010, § 2.
The Court held:
The particular conditions necessary for extending pre-trial custody beyond the period of six months … are fulfilled. Because of particular difficulties faced by the investigations and due to their sizable scope, it has not yet been possible to reach a judgment and therefore the continuation of pre-trial custody is justified. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, DRC case, Decision, 17 June 2010, § 60.
Germany
In 2010, in the Italian Partisans case, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice was called upon to decide a case concerning the killing of nine Italian civilians in Tuscany in June 1944 by German troops.
2. … Two [German] soldiers, whom the accused had tasked with obtaining transport vehicles [as part of a mission to repair a bridge], were killed by partisans in an ambush. A third [German] soldier was injured. Since the partisans had absconded after the attack, the accused, motivated by rage and revenge, decided to take retaliatory measures against the male civilian population of the area. First, he reported the incident to the battalion commander and suggested to take action against the Italian civilians which he had already planned. Agreeing with the accused’s proposal, the battalion commander ordered the [retaliatory] measure and additionally provided logistic supported by making available an antiaircraft gun and explosives. The next day, the accused ordered the arrest of all male civilians in the area. In the end, the detainees comprised a group of nine men, the oldest of whom was 67 years old and which included two adolescents who were 15 and 16 years of age. None of them had participated in the attack or was suspected of supporting the partisans. They were locked into a house.
3. Although some detainees were afraid of being shot, others assumed that they would stay alive but would be deported to a concentration camp in Germany in order to work there. Soon, however, the house was destroyed by explosion. Subsequently, and also pursuant to the accused’s order, machine guns were fired at the debris in order to kill any surviving victims. In the end, only the fifteen-year-old survived with severe injuries. …
4. On this basis, the accused was convicted on ten counts of murder and attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Italian Partisans case, Decision, 25 October 2010, §§ 2–4.
The Court held: “The criminal chamber [of the lower court] rightly considered the killings of the Italian civilians ordered by the accused as murder.” 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Italian Partisans case, Decision, 25 October 2010, § 22.
The Court further stated that “the finding of the criminal chamber [of the lower court] that the objective requirements for a permissible war reprisals were not fulfilled is fully confirmed.” 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Italian Partisans case, Decision, 25 October 2010, § 44.
Hungary
In Decision No. 53/1993, the Constitutional Court of Hungary stated:
The international community prosecutes and punishes war crimes and crimes against humanity; it does so by international trials and, second, by insisting that those states which desire to be members of the international community prosecute such offenders. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court, Decision No. 53/1993, 13 October 1993, Reasoning, Part IV, § 2.
The Court further stated:
[T]he State which prosecutes and punishes crimes against humanity and war crimes, acts upon the mandate given to it by the community of nations, according to the conditions imposed by international law. The community of nations occasionally may also demand, through the action of international organizations, to review and reject that domestic legal practice which does not comply with international law. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court, Decision No. 53/1993, 13 October 1993, Reasoning, Part IV, § 3.
In addition, the Court stated:
The definition of and conditions for the punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity are provided by international law; these crimes – directly or indirectly through the obligations assumed by the States – are prosecuted and punished by the community of nations. The regulations on the punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity – since these crimes threaten the foundations of humanity and international coexistence – form the peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). Those States which refuse to assume these obligations cannot participate in the community of nations.
The regulations on war crimes and crimes against humanity are undoubtedly part of customary international law; they are general principles recognized by the community of nations or, in the parlance of the Hungarian Constitution, they are among “the rules generally recognized by international law”. The Hungarian legal system “accepts” these rules, to use the Constitution’s terminology in article 7 § (1); and accordingly, without separate transformation or incorporation they fall within those “assumed international legal obligations” whose harmonization with domestic law is mandated by the second clause of the aforementioned article of the Constitution.
The international obligation to punish perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity applies to the whole of the international substantive law. Thus, it cannot be assumed without Hungarian law’s acceptance of the international law conditions and requirements for the imposition of punishment as well. If any rule unequivocally comprising part of the international customary law on war crimes and crimes against humanity were to be interpreted differently by Hungarian law, then the activities prosecuted by domestic law on the basis of these offences would cease to be war crimes or crimes against humanity according to international law. Such a procedure by the Hungarian State would not, however, alter the international legal command, nor would it modify the State’s obligation, nor would it change the international law imposing criminal liability on the perpetrators of such acts. 
Hungary, Constitutional Court, Decision No. 53/1993, 13 October 1993, Reasoning, Part V, § 1.
Iraq
In its judgment in the Al-Dujail appeal case in 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal stated:
[T]his Court Chamber believes that all States realize that certain common bonds exist that bind all peoples and their cultures which form a common heritage and that this fabric cannot be torn apart, and that millions of women, men and children have fallen victims during the last century to unimaginable horrors which have strongly shaken the human conscience; and whereas these serious crimes threaten the peace, security and prosperity of the world and arouse the concern of the entire international community and must not be allowed to pass without punishment and prosecuting their perpetrators in an effective way through measures taken at the national level that aim to put an end to letting the perpetrators get away with these crimes. As such, it is the duty of the State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction against those responsible for committing international crimes since the crimes of which the defendants are accused of in the Dujail case form both international and domestic crimes and committing them constitutes a violation of international criminal law and human rights law, while at the same time violating Iraqi laws. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Appeals Chamber, Al-Dujail appeal case, Judgment, 26 December 2006, p. 9, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/documents/20070103_dujail_appellate_chamber_opinion.pdf (last accessed on 1 April 2010).
Iraq
In its judgment in the Al-Anfal appeal case in 2007, the Appeals Chamber of the Iraqi High Tribunal stated:
… it is the duty of the State to practise its criminal jurisdiction upon those who were responsible for committing international crimes, because the actions committing by the convicted consider as national and international crimes, and when they committed it they violated international, criminal and human law. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Appeals Chamber, Al-Anfal appeal case, Judgment, 24 June 2007, p. 27, based on a translation available at http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/NLP/Iraq/Anfal_Cassation_Panel_Opinion_4-9-2007.pdf (last accessed on 1 April 2010).
Israel
In the Eichmann case in 1961, Israel’s District of Court of Jerusalem rejected arguments that the acts of which Eichmann was accused constituted acts of State for which Germany alone was responsible. The Court held that the repudiation of the doctrine of act of State was one of the principles of international law acknowledged by the IMT Charter and Judgment in Nuremberg as well as by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 96(I). 
Israel, District Court of Jerusalem, Eichmann case, Judgment, 12 December 1961.
The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, holding, inter alia, that there was no scope for the application of the doctrine in respect of acts prohibited by the law of nations, and especially with regard to international crimes. 
Israel, Supreme Court, Eichmann case, Judgment, 29 May 1962.
Israel
In its judgment in the Public Committee against Torture in Israel case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated: “[P]risoners of war are not to be put on criminal trial for their very participation in combat … They can of course be tried for war crimes which they committed during the hostilities.” 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 23.
Peru
In 2004, in the Aquilino Carlos Portella Nuñez case, the Second Chamber of Peru’s Constitutional Court stated:
International law expressly states that it is not be possible to place procedural obstacles aimed at exempting a person from his or her responsibility for serious crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. This is based on ... the state’s obligation to investigate and punish such violations which have not yet been prosecuted. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Aquilino Carlos Portella Nuñez case, Case No. 2310-2004-HC/TC, Judgment of 21 June 2004, § 4; see also Constitutional Court, Aquilino Carlos Portella Nuñez case, Case No. 0275-2005-HC/TC, Judgment of 9 February 2005, § 4.
Peru
In 2004, in the Gabriel Orlando Vera Navarrete case, Peru’s Constitutional Court stated:
The gravity of these acts [i.e. serious violations of IHL and human rights] has led the international community to expressly prohibit placing procedural obstacles aimed at exempting a person from his or her [criminal] responsibility for serious crimes and violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. This is based on ... the state’s obligation to investigate and punish such violations. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Gabriel Orlando Vera Navarrete case, Case No. 2798-04-HC/TC, Judgment of 9 December 2004, § 18.
Philippines
In the Cantos case before the Philippine Supreme Court in 1946, the Court dismissed (in a majority opinion) a petition for habeas corpus made by a Japanese/Philippine civilian, finding that the petitioner was subject to the jurisdiction of a US military commission. In its judgment, the Court noted:
It is well settled that war crimes may be committed not only by lawful belligerents but by any “men and bodies of men, who, without being lawful belligerents” “nevertheless commit hostile acts of any kind.” (Par. 351, Rules of Land Warfare.) “Persons of the enemy territory who steal within the lines of hostile army for the purpose of robbing, killing, etc.” are also war criminals subject to the jurisdiction of military commissions. (Par. 352, id., id.) And in the preamble to the Hague Convention it is declared that “until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience.”
Here, the petitioner is a Filipino citizen though of a Japanese father, and associating himself with Japan in the war against the United States of America and the Philippines, committed atrocities against unarmed and noncombatant Filipino civilians and looted Filipino property. He is, indeed, a war criminal subject to the jurisdiction of the military commission, and his confinement by the respondent is not illegal. (In re Yamashita, 66 Sup. Ct., 340; 90 Law. ed., 499.) 
Philippines, Supreme Court, Cantos case, Judgment, 28 June 1946.
South Africa
In its judgment in the Basson case in 2004, the Constitutional Court of South Africa stated that “international law obliges the state to punish crimes against humanity and war crimes”. 
South Africa, Constitutional Court, Basson case¸ Judgment, 10 March 2004, § 37.
In the same case, Justice Sachs wrote in his concurring opinion:
The duty of states to provide effective penal sanctions today for persons involved in grave breaches of humanitarian law, whenever committed, is captured and expressed in Article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (articles 146–147 appear with different numbering in all four conventions). 
South Africa, Constitutional Court, Basson case¸ Judgment, 10 March 2004, § 123.
Spain
In 2009, in the Gaza case, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s National High Court was called upon to decide the appeal of the Prosecution Service in a case concerning a bombing in Gaza in 2002 by the Israeli Air Force. The Court noted:
B) With regard to the principle of universal justice, established in Article 23(4) of the L.O.P.J. [Law on Judicial Power (1985)], its applicability is not to be considered absolute …
a) In the legal framework, Article 23(23.4) of the L.O.P.J. establishes a first limitation, as Spanish courts have jurisdiction over offences committed by Spanish and foreign [nationals] outside the national territory, which may constitute acts that, according to international treaties and conventions, must be prosecuted in Spain (Article 23(4)(i)); in the analyzed case [these fall under] offences against the international community under the modality of offences against protected persons and objects in the event of an armed conflict established in Articles 608(3), 611(1) and 613(1)(b) and (e) of the PC [Penal Code (1985)], in relation with 1949 IV Geneva Convention and 1977 Additional Protocol I … However, this is the case provided that the offender has not been acquitted, pardoned or sentenced abroad or, in the latter case, has not completed his or her sentence or has only completed it partly (Article 23(2)(c) of the L.O.P.J.). 
Spain, National High Court, Gaza case, Judgment, 9 June 2009, Fundamentos Jurídicos, Tercero, p. 4.
The Court further stated:
a) The S.T.C. 237/05 [Constitutional Court judgment] of 26 September 2005 (Guatemala case) and STC 227/07 [judgment] of 22 October 2007 (Falun Gong case) have established the following criteria on the matter:
2. … The common compromise (at least in principle) of all States being the prosecution of atrocious offences affecting the international community, priority should be granted for procedural, political and penal reasons to the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. 
Spain, National High Court, Gaza case, Judgment, 9 June 2009, Fundamentos Jurídicos, Tercero, pp. 5–6.
Spain
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court held:
E) Even admitting for purely dialectic purposes that doubts could exist … concerning the rational indications of an offence found by the examining magistrate, it would still be probable that an offence was committed, which would thus have to be determined in an oral trial.
F) The [1949] IV Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocol I, incorporated to our legal system through Article 96(1) CE [1978 Spanish Constitution], which establishes the protection of persons defined as “civilians” (in particular journalists) … and the obligation of aut dedere aut iudicare have been manifestly unfulfilled … by the US. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Segundo, § 1, p. 7.
[emphasis in original]
On the issue raised in the appeal concerning breach of the law, the Court noted:
1. … [T]he application … of Article 611(1) and 608(3) PC [Penal Code (1995)], and failing this of Article 614 PC, on their own or in combination with the offence of homicide in Article 138 or of manslaughter in Article 142 PC, in so far as they concern civilians “protected” by the [1949] IV Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocol, is claimed [by the appellants].
2. Article 611 of the PC effectively punishes
“anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits [any of the following acts], without prejudice to the penalty for the results of such acts, shall be punished with ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment:
1. Carries out or orders an indiscriminate or excessive attack or makes the civilian population the object of attacks, reprisals or acts or threats of violence the final purpose of which is to spread terror.”
Meanwhile, Article 614 PC provides that:
“Anyone who, in the event of an armed conflict, commits or orders the commission of any of the following violations or acts in breach of the international treaties to which Spain is a signatory and relating to the conduct of hostilities, the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, the treatment of prisoners of war, the protection of civilians and the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, shall be sentenced to six months to two years’ imprisonment”.
In addition, Article 608 of our PC [Penal Code (1995)] … entitled “Offences against Protected Persons and Objects in the Event of Armed Conflict” within the … [Title] dedicated to “Offences against the International Community” specifies that
“for the purposes of this chapter, protected persons are understood as:
3. The civilian population and individual civilians protected by the IV Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 or Additional Protocol I of 8 June 1977” . 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, §§ 1–2, pp. 11–12.
[emphasis in original]
The Court also referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on the obligation to prosecute or extradite those having ordered the commission of grave breaches on grave breaches, and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV listing grave breaches of the Convention. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 13.
The Court upheld the appeal concerning breach of the law and held:
The appealed decision declared the termination of the proceedings … as it considered that the “facts [of] the case did not constitute an offence” … [H]owever, the proceedings carried out do not permit sharing the conclusions of the first instance tribunal; rather, the facts [denounced] merit being subsumed under the cited penal provisions and the aforementioned norms of International Humanitarian Law. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 16.
[emphasis in original]
The Court upheld the appeal against the order of 23 October 2009 by the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish National Court, which declared the termination of the proceedings, and held that “the proceedings must continue, and the outstanding preparatory enquiries must be undertaken, as well as any others arising from the clarification of the events under investigation.” 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section III, pp. 20–21.
Spain
In 2011, in the Tibet Committee case, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether there was a sufficient link to Spain to invoke Spain’s universal jurisdiction. The Court, holding that there was an insufficient link and dismissing the appeal, found:
II: Legal reasoning
A) …
According to the appellant the decision appealed violates the right of the appellants to a judicial remedy both by erroneously applying international treaties ratified by Spain, from which Spain derives the jurisdiction to hear the facts complained of, and on the basis of the existence of links connecting the case to Spanish jurisdiction, a requirement that derives from … paragraph 4 of article 23 of the LOPJ [Law on Judicial Power (1985)].
B) The current paragraph 4 of article 23 of the LOPJ with regard to the extension of Spanish jurisdiction, drafted in accordance with the amendment introduced by Law 1/09 of 3 November (published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado [official gazette] on 4 November 2009 and which entered into force the day after its publication), as stated in the explanatory memorandum introducing the legislation, was introduced to effect
a change in the treatment of what has come to be known as “universal jurisdiction”, through the amendment of article 23 of the Law on Judicial Power to, on the one hand, include categories of crimes not previously included, the prosecution of which is protected by the conventions and customs of international law, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes. On the other hand, the amendment adapts and clarifies the provision in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
The stipulated provision pertinently provides … as follows:
4. … Spanish courts have jurisdiction over offences committed by Spanish or foreign nationals outside the national territory, which constitute any of the following offences according to Spanish law:
h. Any other [act] that according to international treaties and conventions, in particular those Conventions on international humanitarian law and the protection of human rights, must be prosecuted in Spain.
Without prejudice to the provisions of international treaties or conventions that Spain is a party to, in order for Spanish courts to have jurisdiction over the above-mentioned offences it must be demonstrated that the alleged perpetrators are in Spain, or that there are victims of Spanish nationality, or establish some relevant link connecting the act to Spain and, in any case, [it must be established] that no other procedure leading to an investigation or effective prosecution, as the case may be, of the same punishable acts has been initiated in another country with jurisdiction or before an international tribunal.
The criminal proceeding initiated before Spanish courts will be provisionally dismissed if it is established that another proceeding of the alleged facts has been initiated in a country or tribunal referred to in the above paragraph. …
C) In the present case, the plaintiff “dissected” the different types of offences ratione materiae (crimes against humanity, torture, war crimes) … in order to invoke various related public international law treaties, emanating from the so called (and widely developed doctrinally and jurisprudentially) “Customary International Law” … . In particular, … the [1949] Geneva Conventions and the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals of Nuremberg [1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg)], Tokyo [1946 IMT Charter (Tokyo)], the former Yugoslavia [1993 ICTY Statute] and Rwanda [1994 ICTR Statute], and the [1998] Statute [of] the International Criminal Court and concordant resolutions, and of international tribunals with jurisdiction on penal matters (see ECHR [European Court of Human Rights]).
The apellant omitted that on the basis of the present wording of the above provision, which is binding on Spanish courts, the extension of Spanish jurisdiction is contingent, as a “conditio sine qua non” (and this “without prejudice to provisions of international treaties and conventions signed by Spain …”), upon the existence of a relevant link with Spain.
It is this … undefined legal concept that needs to be determined in this case. This provision, in accordance with the line of reasoning previously adopted by this chamber … corrects the “broad view” adopted by judgments of international courts, which does not correspond to the requirements of universal jurisdiction.
In the written claim, the appellant … substantiates the link [to Spain] in terms of:
1) The dual criminality of the facts alleged … [T]his claim lacks consistency with the intended objective.
2) The existence of a Spanish victim … Without prejudice to the proof or not of this fact, or of its adequacy, it is acknowledged in the written submission of the appellants that the acts committed against him are the subject of a pending lawsuit in another proceeding … As such, it is clear that this link fails in the present circumstances.
3) In the third place, the appellants plead general submissions regarding the bilateral relations between Spain and China … It is clear that … the rigour required by … criminal law means that such a submission fails.
III. Ruling
THE COURT HOLDS:
The appellant’s motion for leave to appeal in cassation IS DISMISSED[.] 
Spain, Supreme Court, Tibet Committee case, Judgment, 6 October 2011, pp. 1–4.
Switzerland
In the Grabež case in 1997, a person born in the former Yugoslavia was prosecuted by a Swiss Military Tribunal for violations of the laws and customs of war under the Swiss Military Penal Code as amended on charges of beating and injuring civilian prisoners in the camps of Omarska and Keraterm in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under Articles 108(2) and 109 of the Military Penal Code as amended over violations of the laws and customs of war, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, and violations of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, but acquitted the accused for lack of sufficient evidence. 
Switzerland, Military Tribunal at Lausanne, Grabež case, Judgment, 18 April 1997.
Switzerland
In the Niyonteze case in 1999, a Swiss Military Tribunal convicted a Rwandan national for, inter alia, grave breaches of IHL committed in Rwanda on the basis of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. 
Switzerland, Military Tribunal at Lausanne, Niyonteze case, Judgment, 30 April 1999.
United States of America
In the Quirin case in 1942, the US Supreme Court held: “From the very beginning of its history this Court has applied the law of war, including that part of the law of nations which prescribes for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as enemy individuals.” It then went on to give a list of cases in which individual offenders had been charged with offences against the law of nations. 
United States, Supreme Court, Quirin case, Judgment, 31 July 1942; see also Supreme Court, Yamashita case, Judgment, 4 February 1946.
United States of America
In the Altstötter case (The Justice Trial) in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg rejected arguments by the defendants that international law was concerned with the actions of sovereign States and did not provide punishment for individuals, holding that it had long been established that international law imposed duties and liabilities upon individuals as well as upon States. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Altstötter case (The Justice Trial), Judgment, 4 December 1947.
United States of America
In the Flick case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg noted: “It can no longer be successfully maintained that international law is concerned only with the actions of sovereign states and provides no punishment for individuals.” The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the fact that the defendants were private individuals rather than public officials representing the State meant that they could not be criminally responsible for a violation of international law. Instead, it held: “International law … binds every citizen just as does ordinary municipal law … The application of international law to individuals is no novelty.” 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Flick case, Judgment, 22 December 1947. (Similar statements were made by the Tribunal in the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), Judgment, 14 August 1947–29 July 1948, and in the Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial), Judgment, 30 December–28 October 1948.)
United States of America
In the Karadžić case in 1995, a US Court of Appeals considered a civil action brought by Bosnian victims of atrocities against Radovan Karadžić under, inter alia, the US Alien Tort Claims Act which gives the US courts jurisdiction over claims by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations or treaties to which the United States is party. The Court emphasized that individuals could be held responsible, both criminally, and, as in this case, civilly, for violations of international law and noted: “The liability of private individuals for committing war crimes has been recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World War II, and remains today an important aspect of international law.” 
United States, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Karadžić case, Decision, 13 October 1995.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated: “Criminal judges are responsible for the enforcement of Humanitarian law.” 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, p. 9.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In the Trajković case in 2001, a Kosovan Serb and former chief of police, was convicted, inter alia, of having participated in crimes committed against the civilian population in 1999, acts which the District Court of Gnjilan in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) found had to be qualified as war crimes under Article 142 of the Penal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as well as crimes against humanity. The Court also found that the acts had been committed “in time of war”. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, District Court of Gnjilan, Trajković case, Judgment, 6 March 2001.
However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Kosovo overruled this judgment and ordered that the case be returned to the same court for retrial. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Supreme Court of Kosovo, Trajković case, Decision Act, 30 November 2001.
In a written opinion, the International Prosecutor for the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Kosovo stated:
Article 146 of Geneva Convention IV requires states party to the Convention to criminalize the commission and ordering of grave breaches of the Convention during armed conflict … Article 142 of the Yugoslav Penal Code appears most directly derived from this provision of international law. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, International Prosecutor for the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Kosovo, Trajković case, Opinion on Appeals of Convictions, 30 November 2001, Sections IV and IV(A).
Algeria
During the Algerian war of independence, it is reported that the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) Command had stigmatized and punished acts deemed to be contrary to the laws of war. 
El Moudjahid, Vol. 1, p. 440.
In the same context, it commented on the execution of three French prisoners after their trial for war crimes by an ALN military tribunal. The ALN Command reiterated that it would continue to try French prisoners accused of war crimes and execute the sentences of those convicted. 
“Le problème des prisonniers de guerre”, El Moudjahid, Vol. 1, pp. 474 and 476.
Australia
In 2000, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of UN personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones, the representative of Australia stated:
Governments must also denounce – and denounce strongly – attacks against United Nations personnel and humanitarian workers and take all measures to bring perpetrators of violence to justice. Impunity, as so many of my colleagues have emphasized in this discussion, cannot be allowed. 
Australia, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4100 (Resumption 1), 9 February 2000, p. 6.
Australia
In 2009, in a ministerial statement on Afghanistan before the Senate, Australia’s Minister for Defence stated:
[Australia] will continue to make every effort to reduce the risks posed to civilians by our military activities. We are also committed, publicly, to investigating all claims of Australian involvement in civilian casualties in an open and transparent manner. All civilian deaths are a tragedy and our forces work very hard to avoid them. 
Australia, Senate, Minister for Defence, Ministerial statement: Afghanistan, Hansard, 12 August 2009, p. 4748.
Australia
In 2009, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council, the ambassador and permanent representative of Australia stated:
We listened carefully to Justice Goldstone this morning on the results of the Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza conflict. Australia again calls on the parties to undertake the proper investigation of any allegations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. 
Australia, Statement by the ambassador and permanent representative before the UN Human Rights Council, 12th Session, Item 7, 29 September 2009.
Australia
In 2009, in a response to a question without notice on Sri Lanka in the House of Representatives, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
I made the point [to the government of Sri Lanka] that Australia has made publicly in the past, that at the end of the conflict there are very many allegations of atrocities and breaches of human rights. We expect that these atrocities will be independently and credibly investigated. We welcome the fact that Sri Lanka has responded to the report of the United States Department of State by establishing a commission of inquiry. We will watch that very closely and we hope that that will be a credible and independent investigation of these allegations made on both sides of the conflict. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Question Without Notice: Sri Lanka, Hansard, 16 November 2009, p. 11674.
Australia
In 2010, in a ministerial statement on Sri Lanka before the House of Representatives, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: “Australia has called on the Sri Lankan government to investigate allegations of human rights violations and violations of international law. Proper and transparent investigation of these allegations is an important step towards reconciliation.” 
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministerial statement: Sri Lanka, Hansard, 17 March 2010, p. 2804.
Australia
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in Sudan, the permanent representative of Australia stated:
Australia calls on Sudan to ensure that all human rights abuses and international humanitarian law violations are duly investigated. Perpetrators should be brought to justice promptly, particularly individuals with command responsibility. 
Australia, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Human Rights Council, 15th Regular Session, Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan, 17 September 2010.
Bangladesh
In 2010, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh stated: “My delegation condemns all violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and stresses the need to combat impunity”. 
Bangladesh, Statement by the Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh before the UN Security Council on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 7 July 2010.
Bangladesh
In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh stated:
Bangladesh has established an International Crimes Tribunal to try persons responsible for war crimes and crime[s] against humanity, including genocide, arson and rape committed during our war of liberation in 1971, and immediately thereafter. This action is in accord[ance] with the rule of law as reflected in the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which we have ratified and which aims at bringing perpetrators of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity … to justice. I believe that only justice can heal the unforgivable, deadly wrongs of the past. 
Bangladesh, Statement by the Prime Minister at the 65th session of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/65/PV.17, 25 September 2010.
Belgium
An explanatory memorandum submitted to the Belgian Senate in 1991 in the context of the adoption of the Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols stated that the draft law extended to the grave breaches enunciated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I, in accordance with Belgium’s obligations. However, it also stated that IHL contained other infringements which it did not qualify as “grave breaches”, but which had to be suppressed nevertheless. The memorandum therefore stated that such offences would be dealt with in a separate law, noting, however, that in the meantime, “the repression of all violations of the laws and customs of war is covered by ‘ordinary’ national penal law” insofar as the violations corresponded to offences punishable under national (penal) law.  
Belgium, Senate, Explanatory Memorandum, Draft Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1990–1991 Session, Doc. 1317–1, 30 April 1991, p. 6.
An early draft of this law was amended in order to include acts committed in the context of non-international conflicts and which corresponded to the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. The authors of the amendment mentioned that one of the reasons for the inclusion of acts committed in the context of non-international conflicts was the fact that international law did not prohibit such criminalization. The Belgian government supported the amendment and noted that although the proposals “go further than required by the Conventions and Protocols, they remain within the scope of the – admittedly extensive – application of an international instrument ratified by Belgium”. 
Belgium, Senate, Complementary report submitted on behalf of the Commission of Justice, Draft Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1991–1992 Extraordinary Session, Doc. 481-5, 22 December 1992, pp. 2 ff.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Africa, the representative of Belgium stated, with reference to Sudan:
The attacks against civilians, carried out as much by the Governmental forces as by the rebel forces and militias, are continuing, and serious violations of international law are increasing in number. … In order to halt the spiral of violence, the Government of the Sudan must put an end to impunity and must immediately arrest those responsible so that they can answer for their acts. 
Belgium, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on “The situation in Africa”, 4 April 2007, p. 11.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa, the representative of Belgium stated, with reference to Uganda:
… the Security Council reiterated last March the fact that those who seriously violate human rights and international humanitarian law must be brought to justice. My delegation believes that the parties must continue their talks on this issue in order to reach a solution that respects this absolute requirement. 
Belgium, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on the “Humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa”, 21 May 2007, p. 19.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the representative of Belgium stated:
… combating impunity is one component of protecting civilians in armed conflict. In that connection, there are a number of legal and reconciliation mechanisms in place at the regional, national and international levels – chief among them the International Criminal Court – that can contribute to ensuring that justice is done. Their effective functioning is clearly a deterrent to those who intend to violate the rights of civilians in armed conflicts. 
Belgium, Statement by the permanent representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on “Protection of civilians in armed conflict”, 22 June 2007, p. 26.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on peace and security in Africa, the Prime Minister of Belgium stated, with regard to the use of child soldiers:
… the offenders themselves must be put on trial. Take, for example, [Joseph] Kony, the so-called leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army of Uganda. He alone has been responsible for the abuse of almost 70,000 child soldiers on the African continent. An international arrest warrant has been issued by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We know where he is, but nobody arrests him … We know what Kony has done; we know what he is doing and we know where he is, and there is not any possible pretext for him not to be arrested. I therefore ask individually, the members of the Security Council to do just that. … Let us arrest him and put him on trial … 
Belgium, Statement by the Prime Minister of Belgium before the UN Security Council on “Peace and security in Africa”, 25 September 2007, p. 12.
Belgium
In 2007, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the representative of Belgium stated:
It is crucial to recall and to stress … States’ responsibility to end impunity and to bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. We have several instruments at our disposal, including the International Criminal Court and mechanisms of transitional justice. 
Belgium, Statement by the permanent representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on “Protection of civilians in armed conflict”, 20 November 2007, p. 8.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
It is reported that the Chief of Staff of the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in response to the international reaction to the destruction of the Mostar Bridge by Croatian Defence Council (HVO) forces in 1993, had distributed a brochure describing international provisions regarding IHL, war crimes, cultural heritage and POWs, and promised the severest punishment to members of the armed forces who did not respect the laws of war. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Committee on Culture and Education, Fourth information report on war damage to the cultural heritage in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Doc. 6999, 19 January 1994, § 71.
Burundi
In 2008, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Burundi stated: “Legislation punishing the crime of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity was enacted in 2004.” 
Burundi, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 7 January 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/BDI/2, submitted 17 July 2008, § 69.
Canada
According to the Report on the Practice of Canada, following the report of the Canadian Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in 1987, a section for war crimes was created in the Canadian Police and in the Ministry of Justice. A special unit was also established in the Ministry of Immigration to search for immigrants alleged to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. The report states that this reflects the belief held by the Canadian authorities in the necessity of setting up appropriate legal mechanisms to meet Canadian obligations regarding the search for war criminals on Canadian territory. 
Report on the Practice of Canada, 1998, Chapter 6.3.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2003 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
The IOG [Interdepartmental Operations Group] ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. Another of its purposes is to ensure that Canada complies with its international obligations. This includes the investigation, prosecution and extradition or surrender of war criminals, and the investigation of the most serious crimes against humanity, as well as cooperation with the international tribunals. In order to meet this objective, the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police], with the support of DOJ [Department of Justice], investigate allegations involving reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution. CIC [Department of Citizenship and Immigration] pursues the application of remedies under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and Citizenship Act, in cooperation with DOJ in all instances when these matters proceed to court. 
Canada, Sixth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2002–2003, p. 2.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2004 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Under Canada’s War Crimes Program, war criminals and those responsible for crimes against humanity are not welcome in Canada, whether the crimes were committed during World War II or more recently …
The Canadian Government can choose from several approaches in dealing with war criminals, including investigation and criminal prosecution in Canada, extradition to foreign governments, surrender to international tribunals, denial of visas outside Canada or of admission to Canada, exclusion from refugee protection in Canada, revocation of citizenship, admissibility hearings and removal from Canada. The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police], with the support of DOJ [Department of Justice], investigates allegations of reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] pursues remedies under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] refuses to issue immigrant or temporary resident visas to persons involved in war crimes or crimes against humanity. In the case of Canadian citizens, CIC can seek revocation of citizenship under the Citizenship Act, in cooperation with DOJ and the RCMP.  
Canada, Seventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003–2004, p. 2.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2005 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Canada’s War Crimes Program upholds the government’s position that Canada is not a safe haven for anyone involved or complicit in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide …
When a potential war criminal does manage to enter Canada or is found already living in Canada, the partners in the War Crimes Program have recourse to a number of enforcement measures, including … criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
Criminal investigation and prosecution
The RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] War Crimes Section and the DOJ [Department of Justice] Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section work together to assess allegations referred for criminal investigation under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. In November 2004, the RCMP and the DOJ signed a Guiding Principles agreement in order to enhance the ability to conduct criminal investigations.
Modern war crimes
The RCMP is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal support from the DOJ. These investigations target individuals in Canada who are alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity or war crimes anywhere in the world. The RCMP receives allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity from a variety of sources including victims, witnesses, foreign governments, local ethnic communities, non-government organizations, open source information and media releases as well as allegations resulting from refugee, immigration and citizenship applications. 
Canada, Eighth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2004–2005, pp. 1 and 3–4.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2006 on its Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Program, the Government of Canada stated:
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. The partners have complementary roles in applying these remedies: criminal proceedings under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, on which the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and the DOJ [Department of Justice] work closely together; enforcement under the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including deportation and denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection; and citizenship revocation proceedings under the Citizenship Act handled by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada]. The CBSA only deals with modern cases. The DOJ leads the development of World War II cases with the assistance of the RCMP. The DOJ also handles extradition and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and revocation of citizenship.
The RCMP is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal support from the DOJ, and targets individuals in Canada alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. The RCMP responds to allegations from witnesses, foreign governments, community groups, non-governmental organizations and open source information.
The DOJ and the RCMP review the results of these investigations to decide whether to pursue criminal prosecution. Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Attorney General of Canada must consent to charges before they are laid. The DOJ is responsible for leading the prosecutions under the Act.
In some cases, the partners determine that it would be more appropriate to pursue proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act, in which case the RCMP and the DOJ provide the results of their investigations to the CBSA or CIC.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC/CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether individuals should be referred for criminal investigation. In order for an allegation to be added to the RCMP/DOJ inventory, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated, and the necessary evidence must be able to be obtained in a reasonably uncomplicated and rapid fashion. As there are limited resources available for criminal investigation, the partners have redefined the test for inclusion in the RCMP/DOJ modern war crimes inventory in order to recognize the narrowed strategic focus for criminal investigation and prosecution – one of the most difficult and expensive remedies available under the program. The RCMP/DOJ inventory has been re-examined and the number of files has been reduced from 100 to approximately 60. The files removed from the RCMP/DOJ inventory will be dealt with by using remedies under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. The need for the CBSA and/or CIC to investigate and finalize these files will increase processing times on all files, including those already in process.
The DOJ is responsible for handling allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to World War II. Investigations are pursued with the assistance of the RCMP. These investigations are complex, often taking several years to complete, and require the expertise of experienced lawyers, analysts, historians and RCMP officers. Historical research is used to build each case and to compile potential witness lists. Most witnesses live overseas, mainly in central and eastern Europe. The DOJ must first seek the cooperation of foreign countries before lawyers and RCMP officers can conduct interviews.
Following an investigation, counsel, historians and RCMP investigators determine the most appropriate course of proceedings, whether criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or civil proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. With the passage of time, the age and availability of witnesses, and the challenges of gathering documentary evidence, most of the World War II-related cases will proceed by way of civil proceedings.
In World War II cases, the Government pursues legal remedies only in cases where there is evidence of direct involvement or complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. A person may be considered complicit if the person is aware of the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity and contributes directly or indirectly to their occurrence. Membership in an organization responsible for atrocities can establish complicity if the organization is one with a limited brutal purpose, such as a death squad. 
Canada, Ninth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2005–31 March 2006, pp. 1, 3, 10 and 11.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2007 on its Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
… Canada’s War Crimes Program has evolved over the years but its primary goal remains unchanged: to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals, that is, individuals who may have been either directly involved or complicit in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following: criminal proceedings jointly administered by the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] led by the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and deportation; citizenship revocation led by CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] and the DOJ; and extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act, led by the DOJ.
On the international stage, Canada plays a leadership role in global efforts to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses accountable for their crimes through cooperation with other countries and international tribunals …
While the intent of the program is to allow partners to choose from a range of complementary remedies to pursue in order to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven to perpetrators of human and international rights violations, partners reserve criminal investigation and prosecution, the most expensive options, to a fraction of the cases. In turn, partners diligently seek more cost-effective immigration processes such as early detection and prevention of entry into Canada to ensure that war criminals do not enter the country.
When a suspected war criminal enters Canada or is already living in Canada, a number of enforcement measures may be used, including exclusion from refugee status, findings of inadmissibility followed by deportation, extradition to foreign states, surrender to international tribunals, criminal investigation and prosecution, and the revocation of citizenship …
The RCMP is responsible for criminal investigations, with legal and research support from the DOJ, and targets individuals in Canada alleged to have participated in crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide before their arrival in Canada. The RCMP responds to allegations from witnesses, foreign governments, community groups, non-governmental organizations and open source information.
The DOJ and the RCMP review the results of these investigations to decide whether to pursue criminal prosecution. Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the Attorney General of Canada must consent to charges before they are laid. The DOJ and the PPSC are responsible for bringing this matter forward under the Act.
In some cases, the partners determine that it would be more appropriate to pursue proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act, in which case the RCMP and the DOJ provide the results of their investigations to the CBSA or CIC.
The program partners have continued to examine allegations of modern war crimes, including referrals from CIC and the CBSA and complaints received from the public, other countries and international institutions, to determine whether they should be referred for criminal investigation. In order for an allegation to be added to the RCMP/DOJ inventory, among other considerations, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, and the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated and obtainable in a reasonable and rapid fashion …
The DOJ is continuing to handle allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to the Second World War, with the assistance of RCMP investigators.
In Second World War cases, the Government of Canada has several legal remedies at its disposal: criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or civil proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. Given the passage of time, the age and availability of witnesses, and the challenges of gathering evidence, most of these cases proceed by way of civil proceedings. 
Canada, Tenth Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2006–2007, pp. 1, 2, 4, 10 and 11.
Canada
In an annual report issued in 2008 on its Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, the Government of Canada stated:
Introduction
… The primary goal of the War Crimes Program is to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals or those suspected of being directly involved or complicit in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
Canada’s War Crimes Program – A Model of Collaboration
In the mid-1980s, the DOJ [Department of Justice] and the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] created specialized war crimes sections to investigate allegations related to war crimes and crimes against humanity from the Second World War. Subsequently, CIC [Citizenship and Immigration Canada] established a war crimes unit of its own in the mid-1990s. In 1998, the War Crimes Program was created as an interdepartmental initiative between CIC, the DOJ and the RCMP, with the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] becoming a partner in the program upon its inception in December 2003. This collaboration marked a significant development in Canada’s battle against impunity and, coupled with the implementation of stronger legislation (the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), has advanced Canada as a global leader in the effort to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes.
The intent of the War Crimes Program is to provide a range of complementary remedies to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for perpetrators of human and international rights violations. Remedies are restricted by available funding. Criminal investigations and prosecution, widely seen as essential to international justice, are the most expensive options and only pursued in a fraction of the cases. Therefore partners diligently seek the more cost-effective remedies such as early detection and denial of entry into Canada. However, this does not resolve the issue of potential war criminals already residing in the country.
War Crimes Program Activities from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008
Canada uses a holistic approach in its domestic and international fight against impunity of persons involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. The Program has a broad arsenal of nine legislative remedies at its disposal, including the ability to prevent war criminals from entering Canada through the Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry; and methods to deal with war criminals already in Canada, using Exclusion; Admissibility Hearings; Removals; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution. …
Remedies to Prevent Entry of War Criminals into Canada
Denial of Visas Overseas and Denials at Port of Entry
Remedies for War Criminals in Canada
The War Crimes Program may proceed with any of the seven remaining remedies to deal with war criminals who have entered Canada: Exclusion of refugee status in the context of a refugee claim; Admissibility Hearings; Removal; Revocation of Citizenship; Extradition; Surrender to International Tribunals; and Criminal Investigations and Prosecution.
Revocation of Citizenship
CIC, DOJ and the RCMP work closely together in citizenship revocation cases and have several legal remedies at their disposal including criminal prosecution under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act and civil proceedings under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act. CIC has 18 active modern-day war crimes cases to review for possible revocation of citizenship …
The DOJ continues to handle allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide related to the Second World War …
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration commenced proceedings to revoke Mr. Michael Seifert’s citizenship in Federal Court on November 13, 2001 …
Extradition and Surrender to International Criminal Tribunals
In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to allow Canada to enter into agreements with other countries for extradition on a case-by-case basis and to allow for surrender of Canadians to international tribunals …
Italy requested the extradition of Michael Seifert, who was convicted in absentia by an Italian Military Tribunal in November 2000 for war crimes related to the Second World War. Mr. Seifert was surrendered to Italy in February 2008. Citizenship revocation proceedings against Mr. Seifert are ongoing.
Criminal Investigations and Prosecution
DOJ and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) cooperate in PPSC led war crimes prosecutions, based on major investigations conducted by the RCMP War Crimes Section under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
International missions: During the 2007–2008 fiscal year, 11 international missions were conducted by the RCMP War Crimes Section to investigate suspected war criminals residing in Canada. The investigators traveled to Rwanda, Serbia, Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, Bosnia, Honduras and the United States to further their investigations. 
Canada, Eleventh Annual Report, Canada’s Program on Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 1 April 2007–31 March 2008, pp. 1–6.
Canada
In 2010, in its sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Canada stated:
Article 7
Prosecution of persons alleged to have committed torture
44. As noted in Canada’s Fifth Report, an interdepartmental group, the Program Coordinating Operations Committee (PCOC) (formerly entitled the Interdepartmental Operations Group), coordinates investigation of allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes under Canada’s War Crimes Program. The Committee ensures that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Canadian citizens or persons present in Canada. It also ensures that Canada complies with its international obligations.
45. A major activity of the PCOC has been the review of all crimes against humanity and war crimes files, determining the appropriate course of action, and channelling the files to the appropriate departmental authority for action. There are regular reviews to examine new files that have come to the attention of program partners. The PCOC meets on a monthly basis (or more often when required). Decisions are made by consensus and the chair rotates between the partner organizations.
46. If persons suspected of involvement in atrocities do arrive in Canada or are found to be living in Canada, the program partners assess the situation to determine the most appropriate remedy. Remedies include the following:
(a) Criminal proceedings that are based on investigations conducted by the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act …;
(b) Enforcement of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act], including denial of access to and exclusion from refugee protection and removal proceedings;
(c) Citizenship revocation;
(d) Extradition to foreign states and surrender to international tribunals under the Extradition Act …
47. In order to be added to the inventory for criminal investigation, the allegation must disclose personal involvement or command responsibility, the evidence pertaining to the allegation must be corroborated, and the necessary evidence must be able to be obtained in a reasonable and rapid fashion. As there are resources available for criminal investigation, the partners have redefined the test for inclusion in the modern war crimes inventory in order to recognize the narrowed strategic focus for criminal investigation and prosecution – one of the most difficult and expensive remedies available under the program. The inventory for criminal investigation has been re-examined and the number of files has been reduced. The files removed from the inventory will be dealt with by using remedies under the IRPA or the Citizenship Act … The need for these files to be investigated and finalized will increase processing times on all files, including those already in process.
48. While the Committee has expressed some concern about the low number of prosecutions for terrorism and torture offences, the Government of Canada notes that prosecution is but one way in which Canada can impose sanctions on war criminals and those who have participated in crimes against humanity. The decision to utilize a particular remedy is carefully considered and is assessed in accordance with the Government’s policy that Canada not be a safe haven for war criminals. The decision to use one or more of these mechanisms is based on a number of factors which include: the different requirements of the courts in criminal and immigration/refugee cases to substantiate and verify evidence; the resources available to conduct the proceeding; and Canada’s obligations under international law.
49. There were two new prosecutions that were underway but not yet completed during the period covered by this report. On October 19, 2005, Désiré Munyaneza, a Rwandan national, was arrested regarding his alleged participation in the events in the region of Butare in Rwanda between April 1, 1994 and July 3, 1994. Mr. Munyaneza was charged with two counts of genocide, two counts of crimes against humanity and three counts of war crimes pursuant to the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. 
Canada, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 June 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/CAN/6, submitted 4 October 2010, §§ 44–49.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Finally, Mr. President, accountability for those who violate international law by targeting civilian populations is fundamental. Accountability not only ensures that perpetrators are punished for their crimes, but it can also serve as an effective deterrent against future crimes. Canada has been a consistent supporter of the international courts and tribunals that strive to hold individuals to account and contribute to the prevention of such crimes … Strengthening accountability mechanisms in national jurisdictions is also key, as it is States that bear the primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting violations. Recent convictions of high-ranking army officers for mass rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo are providing a useful example and Canada commends these efforts. Individuals responsible for these crimes must be brought to justice, including those implicated through command responsibility. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 10 May 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in an address to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
Canada has been vocal in condemning the targeting of civilians by the Qadhafi regime, and the impact of that regime’s actions on the hundreds of thousands of people who have been trapped in Libya or forced to flee its borders … In the face of this blatant disregard for both human rights and international law, Canada has demanded … that perpetrators of crimes are brought to justice. We have been particularly disgusted by abhorrent reports [of] torture and sexual violence as weapons against the Libyan population. Such actions are international crimes and may be war crimes or crimes against humanity. Canada calls for a full and impartial investigation of these allegations so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice. 
Canada, House of Commons, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, 14 June 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Although the Friends Group applauds the action taken by the Security Council so far in strengthening accountability for persistent perpetrators of grave violations against children, we call for further decisive action in three ways against such perpetrators … Third, we remain concerned with the accountability gap and call … upon national authorities and all parties concerned to take appropriate legal actions against persistent perpetrators. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, 12 July 2011.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including rape as a weapon of war and other acts of sexual violence, continue to occur at an alarming rate. Those who commit them must be held to account for their actions.
It is the primary responsibility of every state to investigate and prosecute those suspected of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The recent conviction of four former military officers for their role in a massacre of civilians during the armed conflict in Guatemala – the first such conviction against military officers in that country – is an example of national accountability mechanisms at work. This underlines the need for states to fulfil their obligations to investigate and prosecute persons suspected of serious international crimes.  
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011.
Canada
In 2012, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Canada strongly supports the Security Council’s recognition of the need to take effective measures to prevent and respond to conflict-related sexual violence, including rape as a weapon of war. …
… Canada calls on the Security Council to increase pressure on States to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 23 February 2012.
Canada
In 2012, in its written replies to the issues raised by the Committee against Torture with regard to Canada’s sixth periodic report, Canada stated:
180. Canada’s War Crimes Program is based on the dual underlying purposes of ensuring that Canada will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as making an effective contribution to the global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate impunity for such crimes. A committee composed of members of each department of the War Crimes Program reviews and scrutinises all allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including torture, to ensure compliance with existing and emerging international obligations to extradite or prosecute. In order for a case to be investigated and/or prosecuted through the criminal justice system, a combination of factors needs to be present:
- the allegation discloses personal involvement or command responsibility;
- the evidence pertaining to the allegation is corroborated; and
- the necessary evidence can be obtained in a reasonably uncomplicated and speedy fashion.
181. While the criminal investigation and prosecution of war crimes committed abroad is resource-intensive and will therefore only be pursued where the above criteria are satisfied, the ability to conduct criminal investigations and to prosecute is an important element of the War Crimes Program. In some cases, a criminal justice response is the most appropriate action and sends a strong message to Canadians and the international community that the Government of Canada does not tolerate impunity for war criminals or for persons who have committed crimes against humanity or genocide. War Crimes prosecutions, including prosecutions for torture, are closely managed by the PPSC. For example, a National co-ordinator monitors all such prosecutions, there is a special process for the assignment of prosecutors to such cases and special rules to ensure management and oversight apply.
182. Should a file not meet the selection criteria for being pursued through the criminal process, the War Crimes Program considers immigration measures, including the following:
- Preventing suspected war criminals from reaching Canada by refusing their immigrant, refugee or visitor applications abroad; and
- Detecting those who have managed to come to Canada and taking the necessary steps to: exclude them from the refugee determination process; prevent them from becoming Canadian citizens; revoke their citizenship should they be detected after acquiring that status; and, ultimately, remove these individuals from Canada.
183. In some cases it is more desirable to remove an individual suspected of having a role in war crimes and/or crimes against humanity through immigration enforcement means so that they may face justice in their country of citizenship. These instances arise when there has been a change in country conditions and there has been recognition of legal reform (e.g., independence of the judiciary) and capacity building within the justice system, and, as a result, these countries are capable of carrying out efficient and effective prosecutions of suspected criminals. 
Canada, Written replies by the Government of Canada to the Committee against Torture concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the sixth periodic report of Canada, 2012, §§ 180–183.
Canada
In 2012, during the presentation of Canada’s sixth report to the Committee against Torture, the legal advisor of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada stated:
With respect to the obligation to prosecute crimes of torture and to assist other States in this regard, Canada is committed to the principle that it will not become a safe haven for persons involved in war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, as well as to making an effective contribution to the global effort to strengthen accountability for such crimes. Canada has demonstrated its commitment in this regard through recent prosecutions of persons accused of having committed genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda. Canada also believes that, wherever possible, people accused of such terrible crimes should face justice in the countries in which the crimes occurred. In cases where this is not possible, international courts and tribunals and other efforts to hold perpetrators accountable for serious international crimes may be used. 
Canada, Statement by the legal advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, entitled “Presentation of Canada’s Sixth Report to the Committee against Torture”, 21 May 2012, p. 3.
Canada
In 2012, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Around the world, women and girls continue to be victims of sexual violence, including rape as a weapon of war. Hospitals and health care workers are subject to attacks. And people in desperate need are denied lifesaving humanitarian assistance. In such circumstances, UN Member States, and particularly the Security Council, must redouble their efforts to protect the most vulnerable, and ensure that those responsible for violations are brought to justice. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 25 June 2012.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Madame President, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to thank the Rwandan Presidency for convening this open debate on conflict-related sexual violence.
Madame President, perpetrators of sexual violence must be held accountable. We support prosecution for those who have perpetrated or who have a command responsibility for these crimes. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 17 April 2013, p. 2.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Holding perpetrators to account [for] grave violations against children continues to be rare as indicated by the Secretary-General in his annual report, and yet is a crucial element towards protecting children’s rights. The Friends encourage Member States to strengthen national accountability mechanisms and judicial capacities, including by developing child protection legislations that criminalize all grave violations against children. In those cases where national authorities are unwilling or unable to hold perpetrators to account, due to lack of capacity or resources for instance, international justice mechanisms, including through the work of the International Criminal Court, and ad hoc and mixed tribunals, can and should play a complementary role. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security council during a debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of the Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, namely Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Slovakia, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay, 17 June 2013, p. 2.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Primary responsibility for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict lies with national governments as well as with the leadership of non-state armed groups. Where these leaders fail to respond to sexual violence, or are party to the crimes, they must be held to account. Often however governments lack the capacity to respond adequately. Conflict significantly weakens national justice systems, resulting in a limited number of perpetrators facing justice. In such cases, member states could request the assistance of trained experts for investigations and prosecutions and to strengthen the capacity of local law enforcement. 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, 24 June 2013, p. 1.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the minister counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Canada stated:
We condemn the targeting of journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and recall that media equipment and installations constitute civilian objects within international law as affirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006). We must continue to work to bring the perpetrators of such heinous acts to justice. Those who deliberately target civilians with violence must be held to account. 
Canada, Statement by the minister counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 17 July 2013.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement during the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated: “In the context of war, rape and serious sexual violence are war crimes. … The war criminals involved must be identified, pursued, prosecuted and punished.”  
Canada, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly, 30 September 2013.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the ambassador of Canada stated: “We believe that those responsible for serious international crimes must be held to account, for which national and, as a last resort, international mechanisms could potentially play a role.” 
Canada, Statement by the ambassador of Canada during the Twelfth Session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 21 November 2013, p. 2.
Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Chad stated:
The Commission of Inquiry of the Ministry of Justice into the crimes and abuses of power of former President Habré and his accomplices
112. The determination of the Chadian people to turn the final page on torture, and the foundation of the Government’s actions to that end, are manifest in the report of the aforesaid Commission, in which the key phrase is: “Never again”. Although the Commission was established prior to Chad’s ratification of the [1984] Convention [against Torture], its report is just as relevant today. It is, in fact, the principal basis for the trial of Habré and his accomplices and for the fight against torture. The acts attributed to Habré and his accomplices are precisely those referred to in article 4 of the Convention, which is the subject of the present report.
113. The Commission of Inquiry was created by Decree No. 014/P.CE/CJ/90 of 29 December 1990 at the end of Hissène Habré’s dictatorship and entrusted with the task of assessing the reign of terror that had cost so many human lives.
114. Placed under the authority of the Ministry of Justice, the Commission of Inquiry’s tasks were to:
- Investigate the abductions, detentions, murders, disappearances, acts of torture and barbarism, ill-treatment, other attacks on physical and moral integrity and all human rights violations …
- Determine the amount of the contribution to the war effort and its use as of 1986;
115. That report, published by Harmattan in 1993, is one of the key documents in the prosecution of former President Habré and his accomplices …
380 … [T]he publication of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the crimes committed by former President Hissène Habré and his accomplices has made quite an impact internationally; this provoked massive support for the victims on the part of non-governmental organizations and the international community.
381. This support inspired some 100 people to bring criminal indemnification proceedings individually and collectively so that their torturers, the former DDS [Documentation and Security Directorate] agents, should be brought to justice, tried and punished.
382. These criminal indemnification proceedings led to interviews of 35 persons and the indictment of 20 former DDS agents; 19 of them were subjected to detailed interrogation. Hitherto the investigating judges in charge of the case have only succeeded in making one confrontation.
383. It should be noted that the Habré case is still pending before the courts. 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, §§ 112–115 and 380–383.
Chad also stated:
297. The criminal legislation of Chad does not envisage or punish torture as a criminal act. Consequently the discovery within the country of a suspected perpetrator of an act of torture committed outside the country cannot give rise either to extradition or to prosecution by the Chad[ian] authorities …
299 … Since torture is neither a crime nor a délit under Chadian law, not only can no request for extradition be met but in addition it will no longer be possible to undertake proceedings of any kind. Thus the introduction of the provisions of the [1984] Convention against Torture into the domestic legal order is necessary for purposes of trial or extradition of perpetrators of acts of torture.
300. However, if a specific act of torture in respect of which extradition is requested is deemed to be an act giving rise to a penalty of criminal or délit rank under the provisions of domestic instruments (such as the administration of a harmful substance during interrogation by a public official), extradition will be granted, since such acts are punishable under article 245 of the Chadian Criminal Code. 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, §§ 297 and 299–300.
Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Chad stated:
There is no legislative or regulatory provision at present dealing with serious crimes such as crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes which are punishable under international humanitarian law. However, these categories of crime offend human conscience and have no place among civilized nations today. Chad has acceded to the 1949 Geneva Conventions … on international humanitarian law and, since 1 January 2007, has been a party to the … [1998 ICC] Statute … This will be taken into account in the current reform process, by codifying the crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. 
Chad, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 6 June 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/TCD/1, submitted 18 September 2007, § 144.
Chad
In 2009, in its written replies to the issues raised by the Human Rights Committee with regard to Chad’s initial report, Chad stated:
The Criminal Code allows justice system personnel to be prosecuted for abuses committed against detainees. For example, following the abuses committed under the regime of former President Habré, victims filed for criminal damages with the chief investigating judge in what could be called the “Habré and accomplices case”. As a result of their application investigations were launched in Chad and Senegal. 
Chad, Written replies by the Government of Chad to the Human Rights Committee concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the initial report of Chad, 20 January 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/TCD/Q/1/Add.1, submitted 12 January 2009, § 33.
Chad also stated:
The Commission of Inquiry has investigated the circumstances surrounding the abduction of Mr. […] during the disturbances of 2 and 3 February 2008. The commission could not give any details. As the case has been brought before the courts, its conclusions should help explain what happened to him. 
Chad, Written replies by the Government of Chad to the Human Rights Committee concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the initial report of Chad, 20 January 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/TCD/Q/1/Add.1, submitted 12 January 2009, § 58.
Chad
In 2009, during the consideration of Chad’s initial report to the Committee against Torture, a statement of the delegation of Chad was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
With regard to the events of 2 February 2008, for 48 hours N’Djamena had been entirely occupied by rebels who, as they withdrew, had attacked the population. Only after the rebels’ withdrawal had it become clear that people had disappeared, including civilians, some of whom had been found and some not. … A fact-finding commission had been set up and had been given considerable resources and complete discretion to investigate. It had formulated conclusions and recommendations, including the recommendation that legal proceedings should be instituted and that a monitoring committee should be established. The case had, accordingly, been taken to the court, and judges of renowned integrity had been selected to hear the case. 
Chad, Statement of the delegation of Chad before the Committee against Torture during the consideration of the initial report of Chad, 30 April 2009, published in the summary record of the 873rd meeting, 25 September 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.873, § 56.
The statement of the delegation of Chad was also summarized by the Committee as follows:
[T]he Government was determined … to combat impunity. The authorities had to … consider the situation as a whole when they were considering punishing members of the army – in particular senior officers – who committed offences, since they were the defenders of territorial integrity, which could not be compromised. When members of the military were punished, other members sometimes abandoned their posts out of solidarity. Administrative sanctions were nevertheless applied. 
Chad, Statement of the delegation of Chad before the Committee against Torture during the consideration of the initial report of Chad, 30 April 2009, published in the summary record of the 873rd meeting, 25 September 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.873, § 53.
Chad
In 2012, in its second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Chad stated:
128. The Government’s resolve to bring to justice those responsible for serious human rights violations was reflected in the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry. Having completed its task, that Commission submitted its findings. The Government set up a technical committee to follow up its recommendations.
129. The cases of those responsible for human rights violations during the events of February 2008 are currently being investigated. It is, however, worthwhile recalling a number of recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, including the following:
– … [T]rial of perpetrators;
130. The Committee had suggested that the Government should promptly implement those recommendations. It has done so by taking the following measures:
– … [T]rial of perpetrators;
131. Furthermore, pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the events of 28 to January to 8 February 2008, the Government decided to establish by Decree No. 1126/PM/2008 a Committee to follow up those recommendations, composed of members of the Government and chaired by the Prime Minister.
133. In addition, since the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are judicial (giving a judicial follow-up to the events) and legal (implementation of measures to avoid a recurrence of those events), a Technical Subcommittee was established by Order No. 2932/PR/PM/SGG/2008 to support the Follow-up Committee.
134. Similarly, the Minister of Justice established a judicial pool composed of members of the judiciary, lawyers, court clerks and officers of the judicial police. The judicial pool referred to the courts the complaint filed by the Government of Chad against persons unknown for war crimes against humanity committed by armed elements and their accomplices upon their entering the national territory in January and February 2008. A total of 1,037 case files were prepared by the supporting Technical Subcommittee. The procedure is following its course and remains pending before the courts; the Government awaits its outcome.
135. The Follow-up Committee has also recently published a progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Of 13 recommendations, 12 have been implemented. The one remaining, concerning judicial investigations, is following its course. The report was officially submitted by the Prime Minister and disseminated at the national and international levels. 
Chad, Second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 28 January 2013, UN Doc. CCPR/C/TCD/2, submitted 20 July 2012, §§ 128–131 and 133–135.
China
In 2005, during a debate in the UN Security Council on protection of civilians in armed conflict, China stated:
States concerned should take the initiative in assuming responsibility to end impunity and bring perpetrators to justice. Promoting the rule of law and ensuring justice is conducive to the promotion of reconciliation and the realization of long-term stability. We encourage States concerned to fully utilize their domestic judicial institutions. 
China, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of China before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/PV.5319, 9 December 2005, p. 30.
China
In 2007, in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a representative of China stated:
At the 59th session, the ILC [International Law Commission] considered the second report of the Special Rapporteur on the topic of the obligation to extradite or prosecute (aut dedere aut judicare), including one draft article. We wish to express appreciation to the Special Rapporteur Mr. Galicki for his outstanding work. Now I’d like to comment on a few questions.
First, I believe that the application of the obligation to extradite or prosecute should not compromise the judicial jurisdiction of States, nor should it affect the immunity of State officials from criminal judicial jurisdiction.
Second, on the scope of application of the obligation to extradite or prosecute, draft article one stipulates that the present draft articles shall apply to the establishment, content, operation and effects of the alternative obligation of States to extradite or prosecute persons under their jurisdiction. The Chinese delegation supports in principle the alternative nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute as contained in the draft article, namely, States have the alternative to extradite or prosecute. As for the so-called third alternative related to the jurisdiction of other international judicial organs, we take a cautious approach, but we believe that it is necessary to set necessary limits to the alternative obligations of States. We suggest that the draft articles stipulate that in opting for extradition or prosecution, States should abide by the relevant rules on jurisdiction priorities. For example, it is necessary to ensure the priority of the State where the crime occurred and the State of nationality of the suspect in exercising jurisdiction.
We also suggest a clarification of the meaning of “jurisdiction” in draft article one concerning the State obligation to extradite or prosecute persons under their jurisdiction. It is our understanding that the above jurisdiction refers to territorial jurisdiction or actual control of a State and does not include extraterritorial jurisdiction of a State over individuals outside its territories on the basis of the principles of personal jurisdiction, protective jurisdiction or universal jurisdiction, because the obligation to extradite or prosecute is based on the actual jurisdiction or control of the State over an individual. In light of this, we suggest that the wording “under their jurisdiction” in draft article one be changed to “on their territories or under their actual jurisdiction or control”, or that corresponding explanation be made in the commentary.
Third, on the nature of the obligation to extradite or prosecute, my delegation believes that the obligation to extradite or prosecute is basically a treaty obligation and States undertake this obligation mainly on the basis of treaty provisions. However, if the crime to which the obligation to extradite or prosecute is applied is a crime under the customary law universally acknowledged by the international community, the obligation to extradite or prosecute may also become an obligation under international customary law.
Fourth, on crimes covered by the obligation to extradite or prosecute, in the view of my delegation, they should primarily include international crimes and transnational crimes endangering the common interest of the international community as confirmed by the international law, and serious crimes endangering national and public interest as stipulated by domestic law. Making a non-exhaustive list of crimes in the draft articles can be an option.
Fifth, my delegation believes that the core issue of this topic is the conditions for the extradition and prosecution obligations of States. We suggest that the Commission study the applicability of the conditions for the prohibition of extradition contained in the extradition rules of various States and the conditions for prosecution provided for in the criminal procedural laws of States. Then the Commission can see if it is necessary to establish a set of common criteria for extradition and prosecution. The relations between this obligation and other rules of international law, including universal jurisdiction, can also be further studied. 
China, Statement by the Director-General of the Treaty and Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, at the Sixth Committee of the 62nd Session of the UN General Assembly, on Item 82 “Report of the International Law Commission” (Reservations to Treaties, Shared Natural Resources, Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute), 1 November 2007, available at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceun/eng/smhwj/2007/t377678.htm (last accessed on 17 March 2011) and reported in UN Doc. A/C.6/62/SR.22, 4 December 2007, p. 12.
Colombia
In 2004, in its third periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Colombia stated:
[B]reaches of international humanitarian law are now being dealt with by the courts as a result of the hard work and prompt investigations carried out by the Office of the Attorney-General; a total of 184 investigations have been opened into 785 members of illegal armed groups and 463 arrest warrants have been issued. 
Colombia, Third periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 August 2005, UN Doc. CRC/C/Add.129, submitted 28 June 2004, § 109.
Côte d’Ivoire
In 2009, in its report to the UN Human Rights Council, Côte d’Ivoire stated: “[T]he political and military crises faced by Côte d’Ivoire since 1999, exacerbated by the war which broke out in September 2002, have had many grave consequences in the political, economic and social spheres.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Report to the UN Human Rights Council, 3 September 2009, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/6/CIV/1, § 136.
Côte d’Ivoire also stated:
The repeated mass violations suffered by the Ivorian public during the military and political crisis, which have gone unpunished and dismembered the State, testify that peace is the primordial condition for the respect and promotion of human rights in every country. As soon as the process of emergence from the crisis is complete, Côte d’Ivoire will undertake a … policy of consolidating the rule of law [and] combating impunity. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Report to the UN Human Rights Council, 3 September 2009, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/6/CIV/1, § 142.
Côte d’Ivoire
In 2013, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Côte d’Ivoire stated:
Extrajudicial executions
193. Numerous extrajudicial executions were committed by police forces, armed forces, militias and armed groups after conflict broke out in 2002, peaking after the 2010 presidential election.
194. The National Commission of Inquiry, set up on 20 July 2011 to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed during the post-election period from 31 October 2010 to 15 May 2011, identified 2,018 cases of summary executions carried out for political and/or ethnic reasons.
Measures taken to prevent further violations
197. The Government has opened judicial and non-judicial inquiries in all cases, conducted by the national authorities and by intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies. Great stress is also being laid on national reconciliation.
Forced disappearances
210. A special investigation unit was created by interministerial order in June 2011 to examine the post-election crisis in order to shed light on the atrocities and various crimes perpetrated after the results of the second round of the presidential election on 28 November 2010 were announced. Its investigations are ongoing.
211. The National Commission of Inquiry created by Decree No. 2011-176 of 20 July 2011 to investigate violations of human rights and public freedoms in the aftermath of the presidential election held on 31 October and 28 November 2010 was given the task of conducting non-judicial investigations into breaches of human rights and international humanitarian law in the period from 31 October 2010 to 15 May 2011.
212. The Commission submitted its report to the country’s President in August 2012. The report identified the abuses committed in the period from 30 October 2010 to 15 May 2011 inclusive. According to its investigations, of 3,248 people killed, 1,452 were murdered by “pro-Gbagbo forces” (including 1,009 summary executions), 727 by the FRCI (including 545 summary executions) and 200 by “Dozos”.
213. The report also singles out pro-Gbagbo “self-defence groups” or militia members, while attributing 57 other killings to what the Commission calls “miscellaneous persons”. The report also identifies 3,248 cases of “violations of the right to life”, 8,141 cases of “violence to the person”, 345 cases of “torture”, 194 cases of “rape”, 265 “forced disappearances” and 260 cases of “arbitrary detention”.
4. Prosecutions
233. The arrest of the former President of Côte d’Ivoire, Laurent Gbagbo, and his wife was the first in a wave of arrests among political and military leaders from the former regime. Military and civilian prosecutors had brought charges against at least 118 of these, including Charles Blé Goudé, General Guiai Bi Poin and General Bruno Dogbo Blé.
234. The civilian public prosecution service has essentially limited its charges to financial crimes and crimes against the State, particularly where the former President is concerned, while military prosecutors have included murder, rape and other violent crimes in their arraignments. Conversely, at the time this chapter was drafted not a single member of the pro-Ouattara forces had been charged with crimes committed during the post-election crisis.
235. The State of Côte d’Ivoire has taken measures against human rights violations attributable to members of the defence and security forces in the performance of their functions. Disciplinary actions and criminal prosecutions have been brought against those concerned by the Military Tribunal.
236. Amnesty laws and/or presidential pardons issued in the course of political negotiations specify that they are not applicable to the perpetrators of acts of violence against the person and serious human rights violations.
237. Internationally, collaboration with the International Criminal Court has resulted in the former President of Côte d’Ivoire being transferred to The Hague.
238. However, the actions of the country’s own justice system have been criticized by Ivorian and international organizations, as no charges have been brought against certain individuals accused of human rights violations. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 21 May 2013, UN Doc. CCPR/C/CIV/1, submitted 19 March 2013, §§ 193–194, 197, 210–213 and 233–238.
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the obligation to extradite or prosecute and treaties over time, the representative of Cuba stated:
The Cuban delegation would like to emphasise that the obligation to extradite or prosecute is aimed at combating impunity, by ensuring that persons accused of certain crimes are denied safe haven and are brought to trial for their criminal acts.
We consider that the obligation to extradite or prosecute is based primarily on international treaties; and in the case of certain crimes of the most serious nature, it has acquired a character that may be considered customary.
Some of the crimes that include this obligation include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity … [and] torture. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Item 81: Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its 64th Session – Part IV: The Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute and Treaties Over Time, 2 November 2009, p. 1.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, the representative of Cuba stated:
Cuba supports the efforts of the International Community to fight impunity and hold those responsible for the most serious violations against humanity to account, but this must be done in strict compliance with international law, if we want to achieve positive results.
… In accordance with the relevant article in each [Geneva] Convention States have an obligation to search for persons accused of having committed grave breaches “regardless of their nationality” and to bring such persons before its own courts or hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the UN General Assembly on Item 86: The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction, 12 October 2010, pp. 1–2.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated regarding the prosecution of sexual violence:
157. Sexual violence is also a very disturbing trend which especially affects women and girls. During the war, it took on barbaric forms, in that it involved mainly members of armed forces and groups, but it is now increasingly committed by civilians …
158. With a view to preventing and severely punishing violations involving this type of violence while at the same time ensuring systematic care for victims, … [the Law Relative to Sexual Violence (2006)] and [Act] No. 06/019 of 20 July 2006] were adopted to take more vigorous action against sexual violence. They amend, respectively, provisions of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
159. … [The Law Relative to Sexual Violence (2006)] strengthens penalties for rape and criminalizes other forms of anti-social behaviour which had heretofore gone unpunished. Certain violations were drawn from the [1998 ICC] Statute … , others from the [2000] Optional Protocol … on … [Child Trade], … [P]rostitution and … [P]ornography.
161. Act No. 0619 provides for an expedited procedure for investigation and trial of sexual violence cases. It contains the following provisions:
Article 7 bis:
Without prejudice to legal provisions concerning procedure in cases of flagrante delicto, the preliminary inquiry with respect to sexual violence shall take place within a period not exceeding one month from the date of filing of the case with the judicial authority. The investigation and the issuance of a judgment shall take place within a period not exceeding three months from the date of filing of the case with the judicial authority.
The investigation by the officer of the judicial police shall be immediate. It shall be conducted without interruption in such a manner as to supply the officer of the public prosecutor’s office the main elements needed to form a view of the case.
During all phases of the procedure, the victim shall have the assistance of counsel.
Article 9 bis:
The alternative fine (amende transactionnelle) provided for in Article 9 above shall not apply to offenses related to sexual violence.
163. The Joint Initiative [to combat sexual violence against women, youth and children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, launched in March 2004,] is a multi-sectoral framework for coordination and action in preventing and responding to violence against women, young people and children. The participants are: the Government (Ministries of Human Rights, Status of Women and the Family, Social Affairs, etc.); United Nations organizations (UNFPA, UNICEF, UNDP, HCHR, United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)); and non-governmental organizations.
164. The actions of the Joint Initiative fall under five headings:
(e) Legal aid, by establishing legal clinics (orienting victims to judicial organs and providing legal assistance), including reform of the judicial system (combating impunity, strengthening capacities among magistrates).
166. Following the awareness-raising efforts concerning the fight against sexual violence, the adoption of these laws, and dissemination of information about them among the public, the perpetrators of rape and other sex offenses are being prosecuted and convicted, especially in military jurisdictions. Among the cases decided, the following are noteworthy:
- RP 086/005 - RP101/006, of 20 June 2006, a judgment handed down by the military tribunal of the garrison of Mbandaka (Equateur Province) against nine soldiers found guilty, in particular, of rape of 46 persons in Bokala, and who were sentenced for crimes against humanity to penal servitude for life, based on articles 7, 9, 21, 25, 31, 32, 33 and 37 of the [1998 ICC] Statute … ;
- RP 084/2005 of 12 April 2006, a judgment handed down by the military tribunal of Mbandaka against 12 soldiers prosecuted for the rape of 31 persons in Songo Mboyo and sentenced to penal servitude for life, based on the [1998 ICC] Statute … ;
- RP 011/05 of 26 October 2005, a judgment handed down by the military tribunal of the garrison of Kindu, in Maniema Province, against two Mai-Mai militia members who committed acts of rape and sexual slavery against four women in the locality of Kimanda, and who were sentenced to death based on articles 5, 6, 165, 169 (7) and 172 of the Military Penal Code [(2002)].
167. Also noteworthy is the conviction of two soldiers to 10 years’ penal servitude for the rape, respectively, of a 5-year-old girl and a 13-year-old girl, by the military tribunal of the garrison of Kalemie (Katanga Province) in May, 2006. However, it should be noted that judicial decisions are few in light of the number of crimes committed. Logistical difficulties in particular hamper thorough surveys. But the determination of the Government to combat impunity is real and will become increasingly manifest through the reform of the justice system that is now under way, supported by the international community.
168. In connection with the awareness-raising campaign, the theme chosen for International Women’s Day 2007 is: “Ending violence against women, demanding application of the law.” 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 2008, UN Doc. CRC/C/COD/2, submitted 23 October 2007, §§ 157–159, 161, 163, 164(e), 166–168.
Regarding the prosecution of the recruitment of child soldiers, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated:
211. The Government’s commitment to ending conscription of children in armed groups also finds expression in the fact that it has initiated within the country, or in cooperation with the International Criminal Court, judicial proceedings against the perpetrators of those acts, as in the case of Thomas Lubanga, against whom charges were confirmed on January, 2007 in The Hague.
212. Internally, in May, 2005, the Headquarters of the Armed Forces expressly ordered all officers not to recruit children under the age of 18 and instructed them that all offenders would be severely punished. The Auditor General of the Congolese armed forces then expressly instructed all senior auditors and garrison auditors to prosecute any individual who broke the law and the aforementioned military orders.
213. It is on that basis that, on 17 March 2006, the military tribunal of the garrison of Bukavu convicted Major Biyoyo (formerly of the Mudiundu 40 Movement), a member of the Tenth Military Region, on charges of insurrection, desertion, arbitrary arrest and illegal detention of children in South Kivu in April, 2004. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 2008, UN Doc. CRC/C/COD/2, submitted 23 October 2007, §§ 211–213.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2008, a training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, including war crimes, was adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The training manual states in its introduction:
[International crimes] are very complex, especially because of the difficulty to collect material evidence, and … because these crimes are often committed in the context of armed conflicts and therefore investigations only start much later …
… Thus, this seminar aims to strengthen the capacities of Congolese magistrates and to familiarise them with innovative techniques [for the investigation of such crimes]. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Justice seminar, 2008, p. 2.
Regarding the prosecution of sexual crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the training manual states:
Attitudes regarding the investigation and judicial prosecution of … sexual violence during an armed conflict have evolved. Not long ago, in several cases, there was hesitation for initiating investigation of sexual violence. Several excuses were used, such as:
a. How to prosecute a commander when the soldier acted by himself?
b. The victims will refuse to testify.
c. How to prove the crime if no medical examination was carried out after the facts?
However, courts ended up accepting that other pieces of evidence … can suffice. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Justice seminar, 2008, p. 57.
The training manual further states:
Our country has nowadays an appropriate and up-to-date legislation for the prosecution and punishment of sexual offences …
… However, [the prosecution of sexual offences] … does not depend only on the existence of appropriate legislation … Having structures and people in charge of managing them, namely, magistrates, assistants etc., is also necessary.
It is important thus to mention some difficulties for the implementation of justice regarding sexual offences. Such obstacles can be of a human or material character.
The lack of courts and tribunals in our country makes it difficult to reach the entire population … [There is also] a lack of magistrates charged with delivering justice regarding sexual violence.
Regarding material obstacles, it is important to note the lack of office supplies … , including forms that magistrates need in order to carry out their work. All these obstacles, alongside many other obstacles not mentioned here … , imply that justice will never be correctly delivered regarding sexual violence, despite the existence in our country of all the … legal instruments …
In addition to such laws on sexual violence, it is also necessary that the political leaders of our country have political will to improve the prosecution and punishment of offences related to sexual violence. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Training manual by the Prosecutor at the Military High Court for magistrates on techniques for investigating sexual crimes, adopted as part of the Programme on Investigating Sexual Crimes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Justice seminar, 2008, pp. 75–76.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2010, during a speech before Parliament on the State of the Nation, the President of the Republic stated:
Even if still fragile in certain areas, peace is back in practically all the national territory.
The challenge now is to consolidate peace and stabilize the region …
This justifies several decisions we have already taken or that will soon be taken, in particular:
- chasing all offenders and [imposing] exemplary penalties to all those found guilty of committing rape, war crimes or crimes against humanity. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Speech by the President of the Republic before the Parliament on the State of the Nation, 8 December 2010, pp. 1–2.
Denmark
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated: “Perpetrators must be held accountable under national legislation and procedures. Investigation of suspected abuses of humanitarian law is a necessity and a duty.” 
Denmark, Statement by the representative of Sweden before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on “Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 23 October 2008.
Denmark
In 2010, in its written response to the UN Secretary-General concerning the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, the Permanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations in New York stated:
In addition to Military Prosecution Service there is the Special International Crimes Office (SICO). SICO was established in 2002 and is part of the Danish Prosecution Service. This specific office is responsible for investigating and – if possible – prosecuting serious crimes committed abroad by persons residing in Denmark. Serious crimes include war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, terrorism and torture. In this connection, the Danish Penal Code has also been amended to provide Danish courts with jurisdiction over conventional crimes committed abroad. 
Denmark, Written response by the Permanent Mission of Denmark to the UN Secretary-General concerning the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, Ref. No. 6.B.2.FNNYC, 28 May 2010, p. 2.
States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute ICC [International Criminal Court] crimes. ICC is a court of last resort. Ideally, it should have no cases. We must, however, acknowledge that for many States there is a lack of resources and capacity to exercise criminal law proceedings for such complex and large-scale crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. …
… Victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides, wherever they are found, deserve justice. While we must do our best to encourage all States to live up to their obligations to investigate and prosecute, the International Criminal Court was created to take up the cases when States were not able or willing to do so. 
Denmark, Statement by the Director General for Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN General Assembly on Agenda Item 75: Report of the International Criminal Court, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 31 October 2013.
We must continue to work against impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights; persons suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity must be held accountable. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort and is of great importance to uphold international humanitarian law and human rights law and to end impunity for mass atrocity crimes. 
Denmark, Statement by the Counsellor and Legal Advisor of Sweden for the Sixth Committee on the protection of victims of armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 20 October 2014.
Women and especially girls are particularly exposed to violence in conflict. Violence against women affects a third of all women globally. The violence is often amplified in areas affected by conflict. …
The fight against impunity for sexual and gender-based violence is … crucial. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. 
Denmark, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 30 January 2015.
Finland
In 2003, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Finland stated with reference to the “punishment of acts constituting crimes under international law”:
Section 8 of the Finnish Constitution does not contain a provision corresponding to paragraph 2 in Article 15 of the Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights], providing for a possibility of punishment of acts or omissions that were, at the time of their commission, criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations. This has not been considered necessary because the Finnish Penal Code establishes as criminal offences most acts which are considered international crimes, and for the reason that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 have been implemented by acts of Parliament and are thereby applicable law in Finland. 
Finland, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 24 July 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/FIN/2003/5, submitted 17 June 2003, § 233.
Finland
In 2004, in a report to Parliament on the human rights policy of Finland, Finland stated: “The prevention of impunity in cases of serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law is among the Finnish Government’s priorities in the field of international law.” 
Finland, Government report to Parliament on the human rights policy of Finland 2004, Helsinki: Publications of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 78.
The report also states:
If the state institutions have collapsed, or the state authorities themselves are actively involved in the terror against civilian populations, the responsibility for the protection of civilians may be considered to shift to the international community. This responsibility may entail an armed intervention to stop continuing bloodshed, or to prevent a threat thereof, military or civil crisis management, or prosecution of persons guilty of serious international crimes. 
Finland, Government report to Parliament on the human rights policy of Finland 2004, Helsinki: Publications of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 83.
Finland
In 2004, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of Child under Article 8(1) of the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Finland stated:
In accordance with chapter 11, section 1, paragraph 3 (578/1995) of the Finnish Penal Code, a person who in an act of war violates the provisions of an international agreement binding on Finland or the generally acknowledged and established rules and customs of war under public international law, shall be sentenced for a war crime. 
Finland, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of Child under Article 8(1) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 10 March 2005, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/FIN/1, submitted 1 June 2004, § 6.
States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute ICC [International Criminal Court] crimes. ICC is a court of last resort. Ideally, it should have no cases. We must, however, acknowledge that for many States there is a lack of resources and capacity to exercise criminal law proceedings for such complex and large-scale crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. …
… Victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides, wherever they are found, deserve justice. While we must do our best to encourage all States to live up to their obligations to investigate and prosecute, the International Criminal Court was created to take up the cases when States were not able or willing to do so. 
Finland, Statement by the Director General for Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN General Assembly on Agenda Item 75: Report of the International Criminal Court, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 31 October 2013.
We must continue to work against impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights; persons suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity must be held accountable. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort and is of great importance to uphold international humanitarian law and human rights law and to end impunity for mass atrocity crimes. 
Finland, Statement by the Counsellor and Legal Advisor of Sweden for the Sixth Committee on the protection of victims of armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 20 October 2014.
Women and especially girls are particularly exposed to violence in conflict. Violence against women affects a third of all women globally. The violence is often amplified in areas affected by conflict. …
The fight against impunity for sexual and gender-based violence is … crucial. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. 
Finland, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 30 January 2015.
[T]here is still a lack of accountability for violations of international law committed against children in armed conflict. The fight against impunity and assuring the victims’ access to justice are crucial. Crimes against children must be independently and impartially investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Individual responsibility must be upheld and this means that all perpetrators must be held accountable and punished accordingly, regardless of their status or capacity. 
Finland, Statement by the permanent representative of Sweden before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 18 June 2015.
France
In 2008, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France, addressing the issue of sexual violence committed against children in the context of armed conflicts, stated:
The [Security Council] Working Group [on Children and Armed Conflict] should strengthen its efforts to combat impunity by relentlessly demanding the arrest of those responsible for rape and call on Governments to act in this regard. 
France, Statement by the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs on “Children and Armed Conflict” before the UN Security Council, 12 February 2008, p. 23.
France
In 2009, the President of the French Republic stated:
The respect for international humanitarian law is not negotiable … It implies a resolute fight against the culture of impunity, which nowadays still characterizes most conflicts. The perpetrators and the instigators of crimes committed against the civilian population shall be punished, wherever they are. This is why … we need the International Criminal Court, which France fully supports.
Last year – this figure is unbelievable – 260 humanitarian agents were killed, kidnapped or seriously injured. This figure is intolerable. States are responsible for the security of the humanitarian personnel intervening in their territory. [States] have to protect them and punish those guilty of the atrocities committed against them. 
France, Address by the President of the French Republic on the 90th Anniversary of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 4 May 2009, p. 3.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France, referring to the situation of armed conflict in Guinea, stated:
We have never seen so many murders at the same time, as well as rapes of women in front of their husbands and children. All this is absolutely intolerable! It is very good that the [ICC] investigates such massacres; this is a great step forward for international justice. Impunity, I hope, will take a step back with this investigation. 
France, Interview with the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs at France Info, 16 October 2009.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
The [1998 Rome Statute] does not impose any obligation on the transposition [into domestic law] of the crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC. This is why the draft law adapting criminal law to the establishment of the Court … is not a text transposing the provisions of the Rome Statute … [T]he draft law aims at adapting our domestic law (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes) pursuant to the principle of complementarity set up in the Rome Statute. The government considered it not necessary to strictly reproduce the definitions of the crimes enumerated by the Statute, as most of these crimes can already be prosecuted pursuant to the [domestic] law in force. Nevertheless, it chose to adopt a certain harmonization of the definitions of crimes provided in the Rome Statute by supplementing, in particular, the provisions currently applicable to genocide and crimes against humanity. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 59178, Journal officiel de la République française, 27 October 2009, p. 10166.
France
In 2009, in response to a parliamentary question about the prosecution of war crimes committed against humanitarian relief personnel during the civil war in Sri Lanka, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
17 humanitarian workers from the association “Action against Hunger” were killed on 4 August 2006 in Muttur in the North of Sri Lanka. Since then, France has called for the truth of the circumstances of these killings to be known and for those guilty of them to be punished … We first appeal to the judicial authorities in Sri Lanka … If all possible proceedings at the national level fail, we will carefully study with our partners the possibility of establishing an international commission of inquiry … France’s determination to see those guilty of these killings go to court will not weaken. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 58059, Journal officiel de la République française, 10 November 2009, p. 10604.
Georgia
In 2012, in its fourth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Georgia stated:
During the armed conflict of August 2008 between Russia and Georgia, the right to life was largely violated. In this respect, competent Georgian authorities have initiated and are conducting [an] investigation of grave crimes allegedly committed during and [in the] aftermath of [the] armed conflict. The investigation conducted by Georgian authorities is not limited to the allegations of crimes by only one party to the conflict. Rather, it covers any and all facts which have come to the attention of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia through the claims of victims or through other ways of crime-reporting. 
Georgia, Fourth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 1 November 2012, UN Doc. CCPR/GEO/4, submitted 25 June 2012, § 60.
German Democratic Republic
In 1981, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly in relation to the 1954 ILC Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the German Democratic Republic stated:
In connexion with the enforcement of individual criminal responsibility, States were obliged under international law to take appropriate measures and enact legislation ensuring prosecution and punishment of persons guilty of international offences.
It added that “it was therefore necessary to establish a universal duty to prosecute offences, which included the obligation to co-operate in combating international offences”.  
German Democratic Republic, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/36/ SR.60, 26 November 1981, § 26.
Germany
In a statement at the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, Germany’s Minister of State stated: “Crimes against international humanitarian law are mostly war crimes. Crimes against international humanitarian law are internationally banned. These crimes must have criminal prosecution as consequences.” He added that guaranteeing prosecution was the task not only of individual States but of the international community as a whole. 
Germany, Minister of State, Statement at the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August 1–September 1993, Bulletin, No. 69, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 4 September 1993, p. 733.
Germany
According to a representative of the German Central Office for the Investigation of National-Socialist Atrocities at Ludwigsburg (Zentrale Stelle zur Aufklärung nationalsozialistischer Gewaltverbrechen) established by the judicial administrations of the German States in 1958, by September 1999, Germany had investigated more than 100,000 accused and suspected persons for crimes committed during the Nazi regime. In all, 7,225 of the proceedings were handed over to the public prosecution and about 6,500 individuals were convicted. 
Willi Dressen, “Eine Behörde gegen das Vergessen”, Die Welt, 2 September 1999.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
Negotiating with armed non-State actors is a tricky issue. It requires flexibility and realism, but it should not come at the expense of impunity. Perpetrators of serious crimes against civilians must be brought to justice, irrespective of whether those groups operate against or in complicity with their respective Governments. This is a very contentious issue because questions of national sovereignty are at stake. But national sovereignty cannot and should not be an excuse when thousands of innocent, vulnerable civilians are threatened. The imposition of targeted sanctions and travel restrictions are possible measures against non-State armed groups and those who back them.
We also have to seek to protect civilians from exploitation by peacekeepers. As members of United Nations peacekeeping missions do not fall under United Nations jurisdiction, we must find a way to ensure that every country that provides peacekeepers establishes and applies its own laws, and that peacekeepers who commit crimes against the local population are to be brought to justice and convicted. It is not acceptable for pockets of impunity to remain for United Nations peacekeepers. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4990, 14 June 2004, p. 25.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
We welcome the fact that, after long and difficult negotiations, the Council has adopted this resolution [UN Security Council Resolution 1556] … The Government of the Sudan has been given a chance to avoid the imposition of sanctions by demonstrating, within the next 30 days and in a clear and verifiable manner, that it is making significant and measurable progress on disarming the Janjaweed militias and bringing them to justice, and that it is making every effort to protect its own people. This is a clear and constructive message, and Germany therefore decided to sponsor this resolution. 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.5015, 30 July 2004, p. 7.
Germany
In 2004, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the representative of Germany stated:
Given the scope of gender-based discrimination, including violence, we need to ensure that all substantive units of a peacekeeping operation, starting with the United Nations assessment team, include specialists with gender expertise …
That also requires that the United Nations continue to train its personnel, including at the level of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, and that Member States invest more in gender training of potential peacekeeping staff. The German Government has made the latter a political priority in its endeavours. We strongly believe in the need for accountability for wartime violence against women, and in the necessity to end impunity …
The International Criminal Court (ICC) certainly has a key role to play with regard to the investigation and prosecution of gender-based crimes. However, its efforts must be supplemented by national legal mechanisms … 
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.5066, 28 October 2004, pp. 20–21.
Germany
In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
On 30 June 2002 the German International Crimes Code (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – VStGB) came into force. With it, Germany created the preconditions for the prosecution of gravest human rights crimes also in Germany. Like the Rome Statute, the VStGB refers to the international law crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity …, as well as war crimes committed in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict. In the form of a comprehensive catalogue of about 70 sub-crimes, substantive German criminal law is adapted both to the Rome Statute and further generally accepted international law.
The principle of universal jurisdiction applies to the crimes of the VStGB (Section 1 VStGB). Accordingly, crimes can be prosecuted also if neither the perpetrator himself is a German national, nor the acts were committed in Germany or against German nationals, nor have any other link to Germany.
The principle of universal jurisdiction is an important element in fighting impunity for gravest crimes against human rights. This, however, does not mean that Germany wants to take on the prosecution of all international crimes, committed somewhere in the world. The principle of universal jurisdiction is rather the last resort, when other options are excluded. Criminal prosecution on the respectively competent national level retains precedence, which is usually also essential for coming to terms with events and reconciliation within a society. Therefore, in the Criminal Procedure Code (StPO) a complementary procedural provision to the VStGB was created (Section 153(f) StPO). This provision, first, in comparison to the general provisions applicable to acts committed abroad, contains additional requirements for the exercise of discretion when dispensing with criminal prosecutions. Second, it allows avoiding an overburdening of the German investigation resources by cases which do not promise any successful investigation. Furthermore, it was clarified that criminal prosecution by an international court or another – primarily competent – State, in particular the State where the crime was committed or the home State of the perpetrator or victim, is an important factor for dispensing with investigation proceedings in Germany. Apart from that, other possibilities to dispense with criminal prosecution or to discontinue proceedings according to the further provisions applicable to all criminal proceedings are retained.
The prosecutor competent for the prosecution of crimes under the International Crimes Code is the Federal Prosecutor General. Until the end of February 2005, 30 reports of alleged crimes under the International Crimes Code have been filed with him, none of which, however, has so far led to the initiation of investigations, because they were mostly committed before the International Crimes Code came into force, making prosecution impossible already because of the prohibition on retroactive application of the law. There were also cases in which the general rules on immunity apply, which especially are relevant with regard to members of governments. As for the rest, the Federal Prosecutor General dispensed with criminal prosecution in application of the complementary procedural provision of Section 153(f) of the Criminal Procedure Code already mentioned, insofar as the reported behaviour did not already obviously lack the capacity to fulfil elements of crimes under the International Crimes Code. 
Germany, Federal Government, Seventh Human Rights Policy Report, 17 June 2005, pp. 94–95.
Germany
In 2006, in reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Criminal prosecution of persons responsible for war crimes in Italy and compensation for Italian military internees”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
25. How does the Federal Government assess the circumstance that some war criminals in Germany have remained unpunished until today?
According to the principle of obligatory investigation anchored in Section 160, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, public prosecution offices, as soon as they obtain knowledge of a suspected criminal offence, have to investigate the facts to decide whether public charges are to be preferred. In doing so, they have to take into consideration potential legal obstacles to criminal prosecutions. The Federal Government has no information which indicates that the public prosecution offices insufficiently fulfil the statutory mandate with regard to the group of perpetrators mentioned by the authors of the Minor Interpellation. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Ulla Jelpke, Sevim Dagdelen, Jan Korte, further Members and the Parliamentary Group DIE LINKE – BT-Drs. 16/2187, Criminal prosecution of persons responsible for war crimes in Italy and compensation for Italian military internees, BT-Drs. 16/2422, 21 August 2006, p. 9.
Germany
In 2006, in a written reply to a question by a Member of the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), a Parliamentary State Secretary of Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice stated:
Since entry into force of the International Crimes Code Völkerstrafgesetzbuch – VStGB] on 30 June 2002, overall 58 (as at: 30 August 2006) reports of criminal conduct were filed with the Office of the Federal Prosecutor General … and examination proceedings initiated ex officio. The facts on which the reports were based concerned: in 19 cases the Iraq war (including incidents in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo), in 16 cases the Israel-Palestine conflict, in ten cases Chinese authorities (persecution of Falun Gong) as well as African, Caucasus-region and other States for reasons of persecution of own nationals.
So far the Office of the Federal Prosecutor General has initiated investigation proceedings in one case, which concerns potential crimes in connection with the organization FDLR (Front Démocratique pour la Libération du Rwanda) in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo]. In the other cases, an initiation of investigation proceedings was dispensed with. The reasons for this were, in essence, the inapplicability of the VStGB to events which took place before the VStGB entered into force, immunity of reported persons under international law as well as the application of the complementary criminal procedure provision in Section 153 (f) of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to acts purely committed abroad and no foreseeable chance of success of German investigation actions.  
Germany, Bundestag, Written questions with the replies by the Federal Government received in the week of 18 September 2006, Reply by Parliamentary State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice, 15 September 2006, BT-Drs. 16/2692, 22 September 2006, p. 11.
Germany
In 2006, in a written reply to a question by a Member of the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), a Parliamentary State Secretary of Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice stated:
Until 15 November 2006, the Office of the Federal Prosecutor General has initiated two investigation proceedings because of the suspicion of crimes according to the International Crimes Code. The investigation proceedings in one case concern potential crimes in connection with the organization FDLR (Front Démocratique pour la Libération du Rwanda) in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo]. The further investigation proceedings, initiated following the filing of a report of criminal conduct after the Federal Ministry of Justice had replied to the [earlier] written question conduct, concern the alleged detention and torture of persons not members of the army in the central US Military Confinement Center in Mannheim until the beginning of September 2006. 
Germany, Bundestag, Written questions with the replies by the Federal Government received in the week of 27 November 2006, Reply by Parliamentary State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice, 23 November 2006, BT-Drs. 16/3710, 1 December 2006, pp. 13–14.
Germany
In 2007, in a written reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Application of the International Crimes Code”, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
It needs to be pointed out that the aim of anchoring the principle of universal jurisdiction in the International Crimes Code is to deprive perpetrators of safe havens or to provide anticipatory legal assistance as regards criminal proceedings which can be conducted in a directly concerned State (cf. Kreß, Juristenzeitung 2006, pp. 982, 989). When creating the International Crimes Code, Germany by no means intended to presume the competence to prosecute international law crimes of the whole world (Kreß, l.c.).
In the situations relevant under international criminal law so far reported and examined, the conditions for the initiation of investigation proceedings predominantly were not fulfilled because either the International Crimes Code was not yet in force when the offence was committed, or there were legal grounds hindering proceedings, or the requirements of Section 153 (f) of the Criminal Procedure Code were given. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Wolfgang Wieland, Jerzy Montag, Volker Beck (Cologne), further Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN – BT-Drs. 16/4099, Application of the International Crimes Code, BT-Drs. 16/4267, 5 February 2007, pp. 2–3.
Germany
In 2008, in a statement before the Committee on the Rights of the Child during the consideration of the initial report of Germany under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, a representative of Germany stated: “In accordance with the Code of Crimes against International Law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Germany recognized extraterritorial jurisdiction for the war crime of recruitment of children under the age of 15.” 
Germany, Statement before the Committee on the Rights of the Child during the consideration of the initial report of Germany under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 24 January 2008, § 7.
Germany
In 2009, in a statement at the 21st Forum on Global Issues in Berlin, Germany’s Secretary of State at the Federal Office of Foreign Affairs stated:
The belief in the rule of law, which includes the understanding that neither governments nor the military are above the law and that they must be held to account for crimes against humanity and serious war crimes, has contributed to strengthening national and particularly international mechanisms for the criminal prosecution of violent acts, in particular the establishment of the International Criminal Court. 
Germany, Statement by the Secretary of State at the Federal Office of Foreign Affairs at the 21st Forum on Global Issues, Berlin, 15 January 2009, § 8.
Germany
In 2009, in reply to a Minor Interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Gaza War”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
4. How does the Federal Government justify its position that despite the allegations of independent international observers that Israel committed war crimes and human rights violations during the recent war in the Gaza Strip, the creation of an International Commission to investigate such allegations is to be blocked?
The Federal Government has always emphasized that fundamental rules of international humanitarian law must also be respected in Gaza … An investigation commission of the United Nations which examines attacks against UN installations and operations during the Gaza war began its work on 12 February 2009 and will report to the Secretary General of the United Nations after completing its investigations. The Federal Government agrees with its partners in the European Union that the result of these investigations should not be pre-empted. This common position is also reflected in the Council conclusions of 26 and 27 January 2009: “The Council reminds all parties to the conflict to fully respect human rights and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and will follow closely investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law.” 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Dr. Norman Paech, Monika Knoche, Wolfgang Gehrcke, further Members and the Parliamentary Group DIE LINKE, BT-Drs. 16/12087, 27 February 2009, p. 4 .
Germany
In 2009, in reply to a Minor Interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Investigation of serious violations of international humanitarian law in the recent Gaza war”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
1. Does the Federal Government support the call by Amnesty International and other human rights organisations, which is also being made by the UN High Commissioner Navi Pilay to initiate an independent investigation of the serious violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes by both parties to the conflict through a commission of the United Nations?
If so, in what form?
If not, why not?
The Federal Government has always emphasized that fundamental rules of international humanitarian law must be respected. An investigation commission of the United Nations to examine the attacks against UN installations and operations during the Israeli military operation “Cast Lead” (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009) commenced its work on 12 February 2009 and will shortly be reporting to the Secretary General of the United Nations. A “Fact Finding Mission” mandated by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations on 12 January 2009 shall soon begin its work. The Federal Government agrees with its partners in the European Union that the results of these investigations ought not to be pre-empted. This common position is also reflected in the Council conclusions of 26 and 27 January 2009: “The Council reminds all parties to the conflict to fully respect human rights and comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and will follow closely investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law.”
Internal investigations of the Israeli armed forces concerning alleged violations of international humanitarian law have been ordered and are currently under way. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Jürgen Trittin, other Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 16/12673, 20 April 2009, p. 2.
Germany
In 2010, in reply to a Minor Interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “‘Goldstone Report’ on alleged war crimes during the Gaza war”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
3. In the Federal Government’s view, how should allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity be criminally investigated in order to ensure justice for the victims and to prevent further aggression and a culture of impunity in the region?
It is the Federal Government’s view that criminal investigations should be in conformity with international standards, as included for example in international humanitarian law and in the [1966] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Annette Groth, Jan van Aken, Dr. Diether Dehm, further Members and the Parliamentary Group DIE LINKE, BT-Drs. 17/1361, 12 April 2010, p. 3.
The Federal Government also wrote:
9. What is the position of the Federal Government concerning the “Goldstone Report’s” recommendation to the UN Security Council to establish an independent expert body controlling the Israeli and Palestinian investigations [of the Gaza war]?
The Federal Government has always emphasized that the UN Human Rights Council as the body who initiated [the Goldstone Report] is the appropriate body for considering questions related to the report’s follow-up and consequences. The resolution of the [UN] General Assembly of 26 February 2010 asks the United Nations Secretary General to report on the implementation of the resolution within five months. It would not seem helpful to speculate before the end of this deadline about further considerations.
10. Is it correct that the Federal Government would have preferred if the “Goldstone Report” had only been considered by the Human Rights Council and the pertinent resolutions did not include a referral to the UN Security Council?
Reference is made to the response to question 9.
a) If so, why?
b) In the view of the Federal Government, what consequences would this have had for the chances of criminal prosecution?
An exclusive consideration of the Goldstone Report by the United Nations Human Rights Council would not have affected the chances of a criminal prosecution of potential violations of the law. The national criminal proceedings concerning the conflict are not influenced by considerations of the conflict at the international level. The international criminal justice system is complementary and requires that no national criminal proceedings take place.
11. How does the Federal Government evaluate the likelihood of criminal proceedings in case the Israeli and Palestinian authorities refuse to conduct independent investigations:
a) in European States based on the universality principle?,
b) based on a referral by the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court?,
c) based on a declaration by the Palestinian authorities under Art. 12 paragraph 3 of the [1998] Rome Statute?
… [N]ational investigations are not being refused. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Annette Groth, Jan van Aken, Dr. Diether Dehm, further Members and the Parliamentary Group DIE LINKE, BT-Drs. 17/1361, 12 April 2010, pp. 5–6.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German human rights policy in the context of foreign relations and other policy areas between 1 March 2008 and 28 February 2010, which was submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
The office of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecution of crimes under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] is the Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice. Together with the Central Unit for the Fight against War Crimes of the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Federal Prosecutor General keeps an eye on the human rights situations in the hotspots and crises around the world. To this end, the Federal Prosecutor General established various observation procedures which make it possible to initiate targeted investigation proceedings on short notice if information on international crimes that can be used for judicial purposes is received. Moreover, he stays in touch with the office of the prosecutor at the ICC [International Criminal Court] in The Hague and with national war crimes units of other States in order to ensure information exchange. Since the entry into force of the VStGB, several formal investigation proceedings in the area of international criminal law have been begun. Based on an arrest warrant by the investigation judge at the Federal Court of Justice, the office of the federal prosecutor has had two Rwandese nationals arrested on 17 November 2009 who are strongly suspected of being criminally responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes as members of the foreign terrorist group Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda] (FDLR). 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on its Human Rights Policy in the Context of Foreign Relations and in Other Policy Areas, 26 August 2010, p. 46.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on “Women, Peace and Security” between July 2007 and July 2010 submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
The Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice is responsible for the prosecution of crimes under the International Crimes Code. Thus, in line with their significance, these sensitive proceedings are in the hands of the highest German criminal prosecution agency. Within this jurisdiction and taking into account the practical possibilities, the Federal Prosecutor General prosecutes those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In so doing, the prosecution of crimes involving sexual or other forms of violence against women or girls is considered particularly important. At the moment there is an investigation proceeding against three individuals accused of crimes including sexual violence: The office of the federal prosecutor had two Rwandese nationals arrested on 17 November 2009. The accused are strongly suspected of being criminally responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes as members of the foreign terrorist group Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on Measures to Implement Security Council Resolution 1325 “Women, Peace and Security”, 3 December 2010, p. 9.
Greece
In 2006, during a debate in the UN Security Council on protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Greece stated:
Respect for the principles of the rule of law and international humanitarian law and the need to fight impunity are essential for civilian protection. States and non-state actors have the obligation to respect international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law and perpetrators should be brought to justice. 
Greece, Statement by the Permanent Representative, Security Council Meeting on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 5 December 2006.
India
In 2008, in a statement during the 2008 UN parliamentary hearing, the representative of India stated:
Sexual violence against women and children is an unacceptable crime that unfortunately remains a serious modern-day challenge. India has taken note of [UN] Security Council Resolution 1820 of June 2008, which called for immediate and complete cessation of all acts of sexual violence against civilians by all parties to an armed conflict. …
There are adequate international legal agreements as well as domestic statutory laws that condemn such violence. No society or country can ever justify this practice. The fact that such violence persists is not due to the deficiency of legal measures to punish perpetrators. In our view, the problem lies in the implementation of such measures. We agree that adequate training must be given to troops, including through the extension of training to inculcate sensitivity to such issues, especially those involved in peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts. At the same time, governments must also ensure the application of appropriate disciplinary measures whenever these are necessary.
Another way of setting an example is by ending impunity and meting out swift punishment to the perpetrators of crimes against women and children, in accordance with the obligations States have undertaken under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Swift and exemplary punishment, within existing laws, will deter others from committing such acts. At the same time, it is essential to bear in mind the primary responsibility of nation States to respect and ensure the protection of the human rights of all of its citizens. 
India, Statement by the representative of India during the 2008 parliamentary hearing at the UN, “Session II: Sexual violence against women and children in armed conflict”, 20 November 2008.
Ireland
In 2009, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a written response to a question on foreign conflicts, stated:
The recent conflict in Gaza witnessed a number of appalling incidents and alleged violations of international humanitarian law by both parties. I have called on several occasions – including at the General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting in Brussels on 26 January – for these incidents to be fully investigated and, where evidence of violations of international humanitarian law is adduced, for those responsible be held to account.
I note that the Israeli Government is investigating the very serious allegations against its Defence Forces. At a minimum, these investigations require the involvement of independent international experts if they are to have any credibility. …
It remains desirable that there should also be an international investigation into some of the most serious incidents of the Gaza conflict, as this represents the most effective way to ensure impartiality and transparency. 
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Foreign Conflicts, Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 674 No. 4, 17 February 2009.
Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
209. … Israel’s commitment to the rule of law with respect to the Gaza Operation is safeguarded by the extensive mechanisms it has in place, both within the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] and outside it, to investigate alleged violations of the rules and ensure accountability for any such violations, should they occur.
283. … Israel is committed to fully investigating alleged violations of Israel’s legal obligations (including the Law of Armed Conflict), and to taking appropriate and effective action, including penalising IDF commanders or soldiers found to have committed offences. …
294. A significant development in the investigation of alleged wrongdoing by IDF soldiers was the establishment, in October 2007, of the Office of the Military Advocate for Operational Affairs. This office is charged with investigating cases of operational misconduct by IDF soldiers against Palestinian civilians, such as mistreatment of prisoners, pillaging or theft, use of unnecessary force, abuse of authority etc. This special military prosecution unit was established and funded to enable the Military Prosecution to deal effectively and efficiently with these offences, in light of their importance and the added value of expertise gained by transferring these cases from regional offices of the prosecution to a special unit dedicated to their investigation. It also allows the automatic opening of criminal investigations in all such cases, on the premise that these specific crimes can never be justified by military necessity.
312. … Israel recognises that all allegations regarding violations of international law in Gaza by any party, for which there is reliable information, must be thoroughly investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted. The IDF therefore initiated a series of field investigations into allegations regarding its conduct. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, §§ 209, 283, 294 and 312.
Israel
In 2009, in its initial response to the Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza (“Goldstone Report”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
The Report makes sweeping condemnations about the Israeli system of investigation and prosecution, concluding that it does not comply with international standards of impartiality and independence. … The criticism rests on the supposed “fatal flaw” that the system includes, at the outset, “operational debriefings” through internal IDF [Israel Defense Forces] field investigations. But field investigations are common to most major militaries in the world, and indeed are necessary to apply the proper legal standards, which require a determination of what was known to commanders and soldiers at the time of an incident, regarding targets, available weapons systems, and risks of civilian casualties. …
The results of field investigations are reviewed in the first instance by the Military Advocate General, which is independent from the IDF command hierarchy. Decisions of the Military Advocate General regarding the opening or non-opening of criminal investigations connected to the operation in Gaza, as well as all decisions regarding the filing or non-filing of indictments, are subject to review by the Attorney General. Further, complainants or non-governmental organizations who are dissatisfied with a decision of the Military Advocate General or the Attorney General may petition directly to Israel’s Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allows direct access to Israelis and Palestinians to petition for judicial review of decisions of the Israeli Government and military officials, including the decision whether to open a criminal investigation in a specific case. …
… [T]the Military Advocate General is now awaiting the findings of field investigations into forty incidents involving deaths or injuries to civilians, and there are twenty three additional Military Police criminal investigations currently in process. These include investigations of incidents involving the alleged shooting of civilians carrying white flags and alleged use of civilians as human shields. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Initial Response to the Report of the Fact Finding Mission on Gaza, 24 September 2009, § 27.
Israel
In January 2010, in an update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
10. … When violations of those [Law of Armed Conflict] principles are suspected, the Israeli justice system is designed not only to mete out punishment and deter future violations but also to provide the opportunity for redress to parties injured by state offences. The lawlessness of an adversary, or the severity of the threat they pose, is not and cannot be an excuse for unlawful or improper conduct.
18. The Military Advocate General’s dual enforcement and advisory responsibilities parallel those of chief military lawyers in other countries, such as the United Kingdom. The units within the Military Advocate General’s Corps that issue legal guidance to the IDF and that examine and prosecute alleged crimes by IDF forces are separate from one another. The latter function of the Military Advocate General’s Corps is conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor, Military Advocates (who head regional and other prosecution units), and military prosecutors (collectively, “the military prosecution”).
19. The military justice system empowers the Military Advocate General, the Chief Military Prosecutor, and the Military Advocates to direct the prosecution of soldiers for military offences identified in the Military Justice Law (such as absence without leave, conduct unbecoming an officer, and pillage), as well as criminal offences under Israel’s general Penal Law. When the evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood that a crime or infraction has been committed, a Military Advocate may order a prosecutor to file an indictment in the Military Courts or order a commander to hold a disciplinary hearing. Like any criminal proceeding, this process requires military prosecutors to examine the evidence carefully and to file an indictment only if there is sufficient evidence.
20. In 2007, the Military Advocate General established a specialized unit within the military prosecution, the Office of the Military Advocate for Operational Affairs, to oversee all investigations and to conduct all prosecutions of alleged operational misconduct – particularly, alleged misconduct by IDF soldiers against Palestinian civilians during military operations. The mandate of the Office includes investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. The prosecutors assigned specifically to the Office have special training and expertise to address the unique difficulties in investigating and trying these kinds of cases. When necessary, prosecutors from other units supplement this unit.
31. The decision of the Military Advocate General whether or not to open a criminal investigation, as well as his decision whether or not to file an indictment, may be subject to further review by the Attorney General of the State of Israel, an independent figure of high authority.
34. … [T]he Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, can review and reverse a decision of the Military Advocate General, the military prosecution, and/or the Attorney General whether to investigate or file a criminal indictment concerning alleged misconduct by soldiers.
38. … [T]he [Supreme] Court has enforced the obligation of the state and the IDF to abide by applicable law (including international law) and humanitarian standards, notwithstanding the reality and constant threat of terrorist attacks.
41. The consistent policy of the IDF has been to investigate alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict, regardless of the source of the allegations, and to prosecute where there is credible evidence that a violation has occurred. This policy reflects a commitment to resolve complaints against IDF personnel fairly, impartially, and effectively. Israel’s Attorney General has affirmed this policy and it has been presented to the High Court of Justice for review.
53. … The Military Advocate General and the military prosecution have full authority to initiate, and do initiate, direct criminal investigations of those complaints alleging conduct that is clearly criminal in nature. … With respect to other complaints, those that are first subject to command investigations, there is no requirement that the Military Advocate General or military prosecution await a final report from the command investigator before making a criminal referral. At any point when there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct, the military prosecution may launch a criminal investigation.
72. International law does not indicate the precise manner or pace at which a state should investigate alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: An Update, 29 January 2010, §§ 10, 18–20, 31, 34, 38, 41, 53 and 72.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Israel
In 2010, in a position paper submitted to the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), established by the Israeli Government to examine the Gaza flotilla incident, Israel’s Military Advocate General stated:
The duty to investigate prima facie breaches of the law of armed conflict stems, primarily, from the general duty of every state to respect and ensure respect of this law, as determined in the provision of common Article 1 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (hereinafter: The Geneva Conventions). That general duty compliments the specific duty of enforcement of the law of armed conflict and of repression or suppression of its breach; beside it is an additional specific duty to act in order to prosecute those who have committed “grave breaches” of the law of armed conflict.
… [T]he duty to prosecute those who have committed “grave breaches” of the law of armed conflict is not limited merely to the citizens and soldiers of the same party to the conflict, nor does it apply only to the parties to the conflict, but rather applies to every state, and regarding every person in its territory who appears to have committed a grave breach. On the other hand, the duty does not arise regarding every prima facie breach of one of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions or of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 (hereinafter: The First Protocol), but rather only to those cases of “grave breaches.” These are defined in each of the Geneva Conventions, in accordance with the subject which it arranges, in the Article following the one that entrenches the duty to investigate; as well as a number of Articles in the First Protocol. Note that the lions share of these “grave breaches” constitutes the accepted basis of the concept of “war crimes.”
Derived from the combination of the duty to ensure respect of the law of armed conflict, the duty to suppress or repress breaches and the duty to locate and prosecute “grave breaches”, as described above, is the duty to investigate prima facie breaches of the law of armed conflict. …
… [T]he question of the classification of the armed conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinian terrorist organizations in the Judea and Samaria area and the Gaza strip, and particularly between it and the Hamas regime in the strip, was surveyed at length, and the conclusion was that decision of this complicated question is not necessary, as the State of Israel implements, de facto, the rules that apply to an international armed conflict and an armed conflict which is not international. That is also the situation regarding the duty to investigate.
As mentioned above, within the framework of the duty of a party to an armed conflict to bring those who commit war crimes to trial, it must investigate prima facie breaches of the law of armed conflict in its territory; however, whereas the personal and substantive scope of the duty to investigate is defined in light of the characteristics of the duty to prosecute, the various articles in which the latter duty is entrenched do not in any way state the way in which it should be implemented, in other words, the way in which the investigation is to be conducted.
A certain indication of the way that the duty to investigate should be implemented can be found in the fact that according to the Geneva Convention, the duty to prosecute war crimes applies identically both to the state in which the crimes were committed, the state whose citizens committed the crimes, and any other state in which a person suspected of war crimes is found. The Geneva Conventions do not determine a different standard for prosecution of such suspects according to the extent of the link between the state and the crimes which were committed. Accordingly, it seems that the duty to investigate – which is derived from the duty to prosecute – should be implemented identically by the states wishing to act to enforce the law of armed conflict. And, indeed, the official interpretation of the Geneva Conventions instructs that proceedings taking place in state courts in order to prosecute suspects of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions shall be run in a uniform way, whatever the citizenship of the accused may be. The interpretation further notes that the duty to investigate is a positive duty, such that a state that knows of the location of a person who has committed a grave breach in its territory is required to act of its own initiative, even without any request by another state, in order to ensure that he is arrested and prosecuted as quickly as possible.
Beyond those general instructions, it appears that the law of armed conflict allows the state great flexibility regarding the fashion in which the duty to investigate prima facie breaches of the law of armed conflict is implemented. …
… [T] the duty to investigate stems from the duty to identify and prosecute war criminals; and thus, the purpose of the investigation is to locate persons suspect of breaches of the law of armed conflict and prosecute them. Thus, it can be said that the investigation visualized by the law of armed conflict is essentially a criminal one.
Support for that conclusion, that the duty to investigate according to the law of armed conflict does not arise due to the causing of a certain result (including the death of persons who are known to be civilians) unless there are concrete circumstances, can be found, primarily, in state practice in the area of investigations of prima facie breaches of the law of armed conflict …
… [N]ote that, in a situation of armed conflict, there are cases in which the occurrence of a certain result indicates, in and of itself, that the act that caused it was a prima facie breach of the law of armed conflict, such that its very occurrence requires investigation. These are events that cannot be justified as having been a part of legitimate combat activity, such as those dealing with prima facie breaches of absolute prohibitions in the law of armed conflict. 
Israel, position paper by the Military Advocate General on investigating allegations of violations of IHL, submitted to The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), 19 December 2010, Part B.
[emphasis in original; footnotes in original omitted]
Italy
In its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture in 1998, Italy referred to allegations of violations committed by members of Italian armed forces participating in a multinational peacekeeping operation in Somalia in 1993 and 1994, and stated:
76. Thorough and complex investigations are currently being carried out by various Italian judicial authorities in connection with the acts of violence committed by Italian soldiers in Somalia. Four such investigations are currently in progress at the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Livorno.
77. As regards the proceedings for alleged torture suffered by a Somali man arrested at Jhoar and the alleged rape of a Somali woman by soldiers at a roadblock in Mogadishu, a probatory hearing was arranged so as to have the testimonies of the victims and a witness collected directly by the judge. Expert examinations are being carried out to ascertain the after-effects of the violence on the victims and also to see whether they corresponded to the photographs published by a weekly journal. The expert work is now in progress. Investigations are also being continued in the other two proceedings.
78. The Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Milan, for its part, is diligently continuing its investigations regarding an alleged case of carnal violence committed by an Italian soldier in Mogadishu.
79. By means of a decree dated 9 February 1997, the Preliminary Examination Judge of the Court of Leghorn ordered that the case based on the facts denounced by Abdi Hasn Addò be filed. Addò had accused Italian soldiers of having shot and killed three Somalis in a car on 3 June 1993. But the investigations showed that on the day in question the soldiers had been engaged in a military operation known as “Illach 26” that was taking place in another part of Somalia from that indicated by Addò. 
Italy, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, UN Doc. CAT/C/44/Add.2, 15 December 1998, §§ 77–79.
Mexico
In 2007, during the general debate at the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the permanent representative of Mexico stated: “Neither the fight against terrorism nor sectarian antagonism justifies actions in violation of the IHL norms. Their violation must be investigated and punished in accordance with the applicable law and the victims must receive reparation.” 
Mexico, Statement by the delegation of Mexico during the debate on the topic “Reaffirmation and Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Preserving Life and Human Dignity in Armed Conflict” in the Commission B of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, 28 November 2007.
Mexico
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
We should bear in mind that violations of the norms and basic principles of international humanitarian law constitute war crimes, and that it is the Member States who bear the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute those allegedly responsible for them. … Should States lack the capacity or willingness to prosecute alleged perpetrators, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to take up such crimes, as set forth in the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6151th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6151, 26 June 2009, p. 11.
Mexico
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
When violent acts are committed against civilians and other persons protected in situations of armed conflict, justice must be done in order to put an end to the impunity of the alleged perpetrators of serious crimes or those ordering them to be committed in contravention of international law. The existence of the International Criminal Court and its complementary role vis-à-vis national jurisdictions should not only serve as an incentive to strengthen national justice systems, but also represent an effective mechanism for dealing with crimes when national judiciary structures have disappeared as a result of conflict. That is why it is important to achieve the universality of the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Mexico before the UN Security Council, 6216th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6216, 11 November 2009, p. 28.
Mexico
In 2009, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the Sudan, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
The Government of the Sudan is obliged to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of international crimes committed within its jurisdiction. That is a basic principle of international criminal law and a premise of the system created by the Rome Statute [1998 ICC Statute]. Events since the adoption of [UN Security Council] resolution 1593 (2005) show that, faced with the Government’s inaction, the International Criminal Court should exercise its jurisdiction. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6130th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6130, 4 December 2009, pp. 7–8.
Mexico
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Mexico stated:
One of the main objectives in the 2010 programme of work of the recently created Inter-Ministerial Commission on International Humanitarian Law (CIDIH), is to review the definition of offences contained in the Federal Criminal Code, in light of the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I [of 1977], with a view to bringing them into line with international standards. 
Mexico, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 29 September 2010, § 2.
[footnote in original omitted]
Mexico
In 2010, during a debate in the UN Security Council on children in armed conflict, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs stated:
Serious violations of fundamental principles and norms of international humanitarian law are war crimes, and Member States have the primary obligation to investigate and prosecute those responsible for such violations. …
In cases where States have neither the capacity nor the willingness to prosecute those presumed responsible for these crimes, the International Criminal Court has the power to recognize those crimes that are stipulated in the [1998] Rome Statute. 
Mexico, Statement by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs before the UN Security Council, 6341th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6341, 16 June 2010, p. 13.
The Secretary also stated:
Violations of international humanitarian law may be war crimes, and it is States themselves that have the primary obligation to prosecute their alleged perpetrators. If they cannot or are unwilling to do so, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to receive such cases. Its existence must not only be an incentive to strengthen national legal systems, but also an effective mechanism for addressing crimes when national judicial structures have been destroyed by conflict. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council, 6427th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6427, 22 November 2010, p. 24.
New Zealand
In 2009, in a statement before the UN General Assembly, in explanation of New Zealand’s voting abstention on the follow-up to the report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, the permanent representative of New Zealand stated: “New Zealand has consistently called for investigations into alleged violations of human rights and humanitarian law arising from the Gaza conflict. There should be no impunity. Perpetrators of any such violations must be brought to justice.” 
New Zealand, Statement by the permanent representative of New Zealand before the UN General Assembly, 5 November 2009.
Niger
At the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict in 2002, the President of the National Assembly of Niger committed the National Assembly and the deputies of Niger:
1) To make approaches to the government in order that Niger:
a) becomes a party to the following treaties in 2002: the Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998);
2) To ensure that legislative measures required by International Humanitarian Law be adopted … in particular for punishment of violations of International Humanitarian Law treaties and of protection of the emblem of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. 
Niger, Pledge made on 20 February 2002 at the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, §§ 1–2.
Norway
In 2005, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, the permanent representative of Norway stated:
Norway fully shares the conviction expressed by the Secretary-General in his report that strict compliance with international humanitarian law, human rights law, refugee law and international criminal law by all parties concerned provides the best basis for ensuring the safety of the civilian population, whatever threats they are facing.
A culture of impunity for mass atrocities can critically undermine long-term security. If peace and reconciliation are to be real and sustainable, they must be built on the rule of law. Impunity for breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law is totally unacceptable. 
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Norway to the UN Security Council regarding the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, UN Doc. S/PV.5319 (Resumption 1), 9 December 2005, p. 10.
Norway
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated: “Perpetrators must be held accountable under national legislation and procedures. Investigation of suspected abuses of humanitarian law is a necessity and a duty.” 
Norway, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly by the representative of Sweden made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden on “Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”, 23 October 2008.
Norway
In 2009, in a White Paper on “Climate, Conflict and Capital”, Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “Post-conflict reconstruction must be based on respect for the law and human rights. Failure to prosecute perpetrators of abuses signals that violence is tolerated, and that armed conflict can break out again”.  
Norway, Report to Parliament, White Paper on “Climate, Conflict and Capital”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 13 February 2009, § 5.3.
Norway
In 2009, in a statement before the UN Security Council on “Protecting Women and Girls in Armed Conflict”, the permanent representative of Norway stated: “We also need to ensure that those who violate International Humanitarian Law are held accountable.” 
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Norway before the UN Security Council on protecting women and girls in armed conflict, 26 June 2009.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Security Council on “The Promotion and Strengthening of the Rule of Law in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security”, the permanent representative of Norway stated: “It is Norway’s firm view that assumptions of gross violations of international humanitarian law should always be investigated in a thorough and independent manner to indicate whether there have been any grave breaches.” 
Norway, Statement before the UN Security Council by the permanent representative of Norway on “The Promotion and Strengthening of the Rule of Law in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security”, 29 June 2010.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Security Council on the “Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”, the counsellor at Norway’s Permanent Mission to the UN stated: “Warfare conducted in violation of international humanitarian law should carry a strong political stigma and perpetrators must be brought to justice.” 
Norway, Statement before the UN Security Council by the Counsellor at the Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN on the “Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”, 7 July 2010.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement on the “Rule of Law” made before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Norway’s Counsellor at its Permanent Mission to the UN stated:
Member States should be encouraged to establish and exercise jurisdiction over international crimes … in order to ensure that suspects of such crimes do not evade legal proceedings. It is contrary to the rule of law and creates a profound sense of injustice when a suspect of a serious crime is perceived to obtain impunity out of reach of a competent criminal prosecution. 
Norway, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on “Rule of Law”, 13 October 2010.
States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute ICC [International Criminal Court] crimes. ICC is a court of last resort. Ideally, it should have no cases. We must, however, acknowledge that for many States there is a lack of resources and capacity to exercise criminal law proceedings for such complex and large-scale crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. …
… Victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides, wherever they are found, deserve justice. While we must do our best to encourage all States to live up to their obligations to investigate and prosecute, the International Criminal Court was created to take up the cases when States were not able or willing to do so. 
Norway, Statement by the Director General for Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN General Assembly on Agenda Item 75: Report of the International Criminal Court, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 31 October 2013.
We must continue to work against impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights; persons suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity must be held accountable. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort and is of great importance to uphold international humanitarian law and human rights law and to end impunity for mass atrocity crimes. 
Norway, Statement by the Counsellor and Legal Advisor of Sweden for the Sixth Committee on the protection of victims of armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 20 October 2014.
Women and especially girls are particularly exposed to violence in conflict. Violence against women affects a third of all women globally. The violence is often amplified in areas affected by conflict. …
The fight against impunity for sexual and gender-based violence is … crucial. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. 
Norway, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 30 January 2015.
[T]here is still a lack of accountability for violations of international law committed against children in armed conflict. The fight against impunity and assuring the victims’ access to justice are crucial. Crimes against children must be independently and impartially investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Individual responsibility must be upheld and this means that all perpetrators must be held accountable and punished accordingly, regardless of their status or capacity. 
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Sweden before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 18 June 2015.
Russian Federation
In 2008, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated:
The prevention of violence is an objective that is strategic in nature, reaffirming the need to combat impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law. Here, assistance to those States involved in restoring or establishing independent national judicial systems and institutions should be stressed. 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 27 May 2008.
Russian Federation
In 2009, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated:
Once again, just a few days ago, 17 Afghan civilians, including women and children, were killed during a coalition operation in eastern Afghanistan. … We support a careful investigation into such incidents, including punishment for the guilty. That also applies to the activities of private security companies. 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 14 January 2009.
Russian Federation
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We resolutely condemn premeditated attacks on civilians, as well as civilian deaths resulting from the indiscriminate or disproportionate use of force, which is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. We advocate thorough investigation of such incidents and punishment of the perpetrators.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation during the UN Security Council meeting on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, 10 May 2011, p. 9.
Russian Federation
In 2012, the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation stated:
[A]nother massacre against peaceful Syrian citizens took place, this time in villages of Al-Kubeyr and Maarzaf near the town of Hama. Nearly 100 peaceful citizens are reported dead, including 40 women and children. … We strongly condemn the barbaric acts of violence in the area of town Hama. Their [perpetrators] must be brought to trial and suffer the most severe punishment. 
Russian Federation, Comment by the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the massacre in the suburbs of the Syrian town of Hama, 7 June 2012.
Rwanda
In 2010, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Rwanda stated:
If children could have committed crimes while in armed groups or armed forces, Rwanda has a Military Penal Code that in fact constitutes the Fourth Title of the Penal Code [(1977)]. Article 451 specifies the manner in which military jurisdictions apply punishments to offences in these terms: “military jurisdictions apply to ordinary crimes, punishments enacted by ordinary criminal laws. As for military offences below, they apply punishments provided for by the Military Penal Code. To all offences and apart from exceptions provided for by the Military Penal [C]ode, they apply the general provisions of the Ordinary Penal Code”. In the final analysis, … [former child soldiers] who are guilty of committing crimes while in armed groups or armed forces would be judged on the basis of [the] Military Penal Code. These children could benefit from [the] mitigating circumstances of being minors provided for in Article 77 of the Penal Code [(1977)] as well as from any procedure in their favour provided for by the law.  
Rwanda, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 6 December 2011, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/RWA/1, submitted 20 January 2010, § 175.
With [regards] to accountability for violations and abuse against civilians in armed conflicts, I wish to restate the four important peace proposals emphasized by our Minister for Foreign Affairs in her statement during the open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict held in February (see S/PV.6917). First, justice must be timely. Secondly, rendering justice to victims should be the only objective of accountability mechanisms. Political considerations should have no place. Thirdly, more careful attention should be paid to the principle of subsidiarity when choosing the most appropriate venue for judicial proceedings. Fourthly, the international community should increase the investment in strengthening national judicial capacities.
Rwanda supports the fight against impunity and is ready to back Government actions that will lead to accountability for the perpetrators of violations and abuses against civilians populations. 
Rwanda, Statement by the Political Coordinator of Rwanda before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/PV.7019, 19 August 2013, p. 21.
As the world is preparing to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in Rwanda, which would also be a reminder of the memorable failure of the Security Council to save a million citizens of this world, the conscience of the international community has once again been stained by the ongoing conflict in Syria, which is in its thirtieth month.
… Rwanda was pleased that the Security Council agreed on the need for accountability and for the revival of the Geneva process. Indeed, while 1,500 Syrians were gassed to death a month ago, we cannot lose sight of the fact that more than 100,000 men, women and children were massacred over the last 30 months with conventional weapons. We know for a fact that a military solution has so far failed in Syria and cannot be a viable answer for the country and the region. That is why Rwanda welcomes the revival of the Final communiqué of the Action Group for Syria (S/2012/523, annex) and the political transition in Syria.
I take this opportunity to urge the Security Council, particularly those permanent members that have influence on the Syrian parties, to ensure that the international conference on Syria to implement the Geneva communiqué is convened as soon as possible and that parties negotiate in good faith and with a sense of responsibility, with a view to finding a lasting solution and ending calvary of the Syrian people. I am encouraged by the information provided tonight that an agreement may have been reached on starting a “Geneva II” conference in mid-November.
Nonetheless, given the horrendous crimes committed in Syria, Rwanda is of the strong belief that any political solution should ensure that all those who committed crimes in Syria are held accountable before a court of law. We therefore welcome the accountability provisions contained in the adopted resolution [resolution 2118 (2013)]. Rwanda will play its part to ensure that they are implemented. 
Rwanda, Statement by the permanent representative of Rwanda before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the situation in the Middle East, UN Doc. S/PV.7038, 27 September 2013, pp. 13–14.
Senegal
In 2011, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Senegal stated:
I. Information on new measures and new developments relating to the implementation of the [1984] Convention [against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]
Article 2 of the Convention
93. New legislative measures have been adopted to strengthen the law in this respect:
- Act No. 2007-02 of 12 February 2007 incorporated articles 431-1, 431-2, 431-3, 431-4 and 431-5 [on the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law] into the [1965 Penal] Code. These articles deal with the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law, such as those covered by the Hague Conventions of 1954, 1976 and 1980, which had not previously been specified in the Code.
Article 5 of the Convention
Paragraph 1 (a)
106. Senegalese criminal law incorporates the principle of territoriality. Article 668 of the [1965] Code of Criminal Procedure states that: “Any offence, whereof an act forming one of its constituent parts has been performed in Senegal, shall be deemed to have been committed in the territory of the Republic.” By the same token, any offence committed in Senegalese territory is punishable, regardless of its gravity or of the nationality of the perpetrator or of the victim. In all such cases the Senegalese criminal courts retain jurisdiction.
107. The country’s territorial jurisdiction encompasses the land area within its borders, the continental shelf, its territorial sea and air space.
108. In accordance with article 5 of the Convention, this jurisdiction also extends to offences committed on board a vessel flying the Senegalese flag and on board aircraft registered in Senegal.
Paragraph 1 (b)
109. The Senegalese [Penal] Code enshrines the active personality principle referred to in article 5 of the Convention, whereby domestic courts are competent to try cases in which the alleged offender is a Senegalese national.
110. Article 664 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that: “Any citizen of Senegal who has committed an act outside of the national territory which is a crime under Senegalese law may be tried by Senegalese courts.
111. Any citizen of Senegal who has committed an act outside of the national territory which is an offence under Senegalese law may be tried by Senegalese courts if the act is punishable by law in the State in which it was committed.”
Paragraph 1 (c)
112. The recent adoption of Act No. 2008-23 of 25 July 2008, whereby article 664 bis was incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure, has made it possible to establish jurisdiction based on the passive personality principle.
113. This article stipulates that: “Any citizen of Senegal who has become the victim of a crime or an offence outside of Senegalese territory may appeal to the Senegalese courts if the acts have not led to a definitive judgement on the merits.”
Paragraph 2
114. By adopting Act No. 2007-05 of 12 February 2007, which amends the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State of Senegal has taken the necessary measures to establish the competency of the Senegalese criminal courts to try all acts of torture in cases where the alleged offenders are present in Senegalese territory if no order for their extradition has been issued.
115. In line with this law, any foreigner who has been accused of committing or aiding in the commission of any of the crimes mentioned in article 295-1 of the [Penal] Code outside Senegalese territory may be tried under Senegalese law or laws applicable in Senegal if he or she is under Senegalese jurisdiction or if one of the victims resides in the territory of Senegal, or if the Government secures the alleged offender’s extradition.
II. Implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee
A. Compliance with the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations
- The Committee notes that the conflict in Casamance sometimes impedes effective implementation of the Convention
187. The comprehensive peace agreement of 30 December 2004 concluded between the Government of Senegal and the Movement of Democratic Forces of Casamance has dramatically improved the situation despite the sporadic but regrettable acts of violence committed by isolated armed gangs and the number of anti-personnel landmine victims. …
194. In the context of these developments, which are underpinned by a steadfast political commitment to combat acts of torture and impunity, Senegal fully endorses the Committee’s statement that: “A democracy must, whatever the circumstances, ensure that only legitimate means are used to protect the security of the State, peace and stability.”
B. Compliance with the Committee’s decision concerning communication No. 181/2001
Legislative reforms (see the first part of the present report for details)
270. Various pieces of legislation have been passed which amend, introduce and repeal certain provisions of the [Penal] Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure.
271. Act No. 2007-02 of 12 February 2007 incorporated articles 431-1, 431-2, 431-3, 431-4 and 431-5 into our [Penal] Code. These articles deal with genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other crimes under international law, such as those mentioned in the Hague Conventions of 1954, 1976 and 1980, which had not previously been specified in the Code.
273. Article 669 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been amended to read as follows: “Any foreign national who, outside the territory of Senegal, is accused of perpetrating or acting as an accomplice to one of the crimes mentioned in articles 431-1 to 431-5 or a crime or offence mentioned in articles 279-1 to 279-3 or 295 of the [Penal] Code may be tried under Senegalese law or laws applying in Senegal, or if the Government secures that person’s extradition.”
274. Article 664 bis was added to title 12 of the fourth book of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is worded [a]s follows: “The domestic courts are competent to try any crime or offence punishable under Senegalese law that was committed outside the territory of the Republic, whether by a Senegalese or a foreign national, if the victim was a Senegalese national at the time that the crime or offence in question was committed.” 
Senegal, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 5 October 2011, UN Doc. CAT/C/SEN/3, submitted 9 February 2011, §§ 93, 106–115, 187, 194, 270–271 and 273–274.
Slovenia
In 2000, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of UN personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones, Slovenia stated:
States have the primary responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all personnel [i.e. UN personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict areas]. The Security Council for its part should insist on the responsibility of all parties to a conflict to respect international humanitarian law, and should take appropriate action in that regard. Attacks against such personnel clearly represent breaches of norms of international law. Every incident must be fully investigated, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice. 
Slovenia, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4100 (Resumption 1), 9 February 2000, p. 8.
Somalia
In 2011, in its comments on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Council concerning Somalia’s report, Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government stated:
98.1. … The Government fully supports the principles enshrined in the [1998] Rome Statute of [the] International Criminal Court and is committed to ending the persisting culture of impunity and ensuring that perpetrators of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) are held accountable for their actions and that justice is done. …
98.71. … The Government will undertake every effort to stop … serious violations of … IHL. Those responsible will be held accountable for their actions.
98.102. … The Government is committed to strengthening the judiciary in order to end the persisting culture of impunity and ensuring that those responsible for violations of human rights and IHL are held to account for their actions. The work of the National Human Rights Commission will also be fundamental in dealing with human rights and IHL violations committed by all parties to the conflict in Somalia. Additionally, the Government is committed to creating a National Independent Commission of Inquiry tasked with investigating allegations of serious violations of IHL and human rights law on a permanent basis.  
Somalia, Comments by the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Council concerning the report of Somalia, submitted 21 September 2011, §§ 98.1, 98.71 and 98.102.
South Africa
In 1998, in its report on “gross violations of human rights” committed between 1960 and 1993, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission stated:
Those combatants who were killed or seriously injured while they were unarmed or out of combat, executed after they had been captured, or wounded when they clearly could have been arrested were held to be victims of gross violations of human rights, and those responsible were held accountable. 
South Africa, Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 1998, Vol. 1, p. 76, § 102.
Spain
In 2009, in its written replies to the Committee against Torture concerning its fifth periodic report, Spain stated:
167. … [W]ith regard to a possible conflict between the [1977] Amnesty Law and the obligations of the Spanish State under article 5 of the [1984] Convention against Torture concerning the establishment of jurisdiction over the crime of torture and the [duty to] prosecute or extradite persons accused of inflicting acts of torture, it should be mentioned that the Convention against Torture … entered into force on 26 June 1987, while the Law of 1977 refers to acts that took place before the adoption of the former law. Having mentioned this, however, the efforts undertaken in the last years by the Spanish State with regard to the victims of the civil war and the dictatorship must be emphasized.
169. Nonetheless, the non-applicability of the statute of limitations in the 1977 Amnesty Law for acts of torture that resulted in “grave violence to life and person” applies to acts committed between 15 June 1976 and 15 December 1977; with regard to the [acts] prior to the first of these dates, paragraph a) of article 1 of the above-mentioned law, applies. 
Spain, Written replies by the Government of Spain to the Committee against Torture concerning the list of issues raised in connection with the fifth periodic report of Spain, 22 September 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/ESP/Q/5/Add.1, §§ 167 and 169; see also § 164.
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
Members of the armed forces who contravene the aforementioned principles [of IHL] will be punished in accordance with the Military Criminal Code, adopted through Basic Act 13/1985 and amended by Basic Act 3/2002. The Military Criminal Code also gives precedence to “crimes against the laws and customs of war”, described in Title Two of … the Book of Crimes. Articles 69 to 78 set out the penalties for violating the principles of international humanitarian law, in order of the seriousness of the acts committed. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
States have the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute ICC [International Criminal Court] crimes. ICC is a court of last resort. Ideally, it should have no cases. We must, however, acknowledge that for many States there is a lack of resources and capacity to exercise criminal law proceedings for such complex and large-scale crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. …
… Victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides, wherever they are found, deserve justice. While we must do our best to encourage all States to live up to their obligations to investigate and prosecute, the International Criminal Court was created to take up the cases when States were not able or willing to do so. 
Sweden, Statement by the Director General for Legal Affairs at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN General Assembly on Agenda Item 75: Report of the International Criminal Court, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 31 October 2013.
A new Act on Criminal Responsibility for Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes will enter into force on 1 July 2014. The act replaces the Genocide Act (1964:169) and the provision on international crime in the Penal Code that will cease to apply. The new act strengthens the protection against war crimes committed in non-international armed conflicts since the predominant part of the regulation concerning war crimes is applicable in international as well as non-international armed conflicts. 
Sweden, Information on the “Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict”, 16 June 2014, § 2.
We must continue to work against impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights; persons suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity must be held accountable. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort and is of great importance to uphold international humanitarian law and human rights law and to end impunity for mass atrocity crimes. 
Sweden, Statement by the counsellor and legal adviser on the protection of victims of armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 20 October 2014.
Women and especially girls are particularly exposed to violence in conflict. Violence against women affects a third of all women globally. The violence is often amplified in areas affected by conflict. …
The fight against impunity for sexual and gender-based violence is … crucial. Each state has a duty and a responsibility to investigate and prosecute such crimes. It is primarily at the domestic level that solutions to the impunity gap must be found. 
Sweden, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 30 January 2015.
[T]here is still a lack of accountability for violations of international law committed against children in armed conflict. The fight against impunity and assuring the victims’ access to justice are crucial. Crimes against children must be independently and impartially investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Individual responsibility must be upheld and this means that all perpetrators must be held accountable and punished accordingly, regardless of their status or capacity. 
Sweden, Statement by the permanent representative of Sweden before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, made on behalf of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 18 June 2015.
The [1949] Geneva Conventions and their [1977] Additional Protocols have rules that protect medical personnel and civilians. According to international law, concerned states have a responsibility to investigate if alleged war crimes have been committed. This is also valid in situations such as that of Kunduz. 
Sweden, Answer by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written question 2015/16:122 in Parliament on the independent investigation of the attack on a hospital in Kunduz, 20 October 2015.
Switzerland
In a resolution adopted on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the 1977 Additional Protocols in 2002, Switzerland’s Conseil des Etats invited “national parliaments to examine the totality of the most appropriate legislative and judicial means in order to … better prevent and repress violations of this law”. 
Switzerland, Conseil des Etats, Declaration concerning the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions, 12 June 2002, Summer Session 2002, Seventh Session, Official Bulletin, No. 02.048 (provisional version of the text).
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private security and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
The [1949] Geneva Conventions and the [1984] UN Convention on Torture oblige the States Parties to prosecute serious infringements against both conventions. This obligation is based on the principle of universal jurisdiction and thus applies if the crime takes place in another country and is not against or by a national of that state.
Accordingly, under certain conditions, Swiss legislation considers cases of grave violations against the Geneva Conventions, genocide, other war crimes and torture as falling under Swiss criminal jurisdiction on the basis of the principle of universal jurisdiction. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.5.2.3, pp. 49–50; see also Section 4.5.3.1 pp. 33–35, Section 5.3.3, p. 46 and Section 6.1.4 pp. 54–55.
[footnotes in original omitted; emphasis in original]
The report further stated: “Under the Geneva Conventions, Switzerland, as a contracting party, also has the duty to call to account Swiss nationals or foreigners living in Switzerland, whether they are employees of private security companies or not, if they have committed war crimes.” 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.6, pp. 50–51; see also Section 5.5.2.2, p. 49.
(emphasis in original)
Switzerland
In 2006, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a conceptual framework for dealing with the past, which stated:
The right to justice and the duty to investigate and to prosecute imply that any victim can assert his or her rights and receive fair and effective remedy for abuses suffered. This includes the expectation that the person or persons responsible will be held accountable to the law … It also entails the obligation on the part of the State to investigate violations, to arrest and to prosecute the perpetrators and, if their guilt is established, to punish them. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland’s conceptual framework for dealing with the past, 2006.
Switzerland
In 2008, in its sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Switzerland stated:
G. Current bills
2. Criminal law
13. On 23 April 2008, the Federal Council adopted the message on the amendment of federal laws with a view to implementing the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This bill envisages the incorporation in the Criminal Code of a new offence of crimes against humanity and the express enumeration of the most serious war crimes. A new distribution of powers between the civil and military criminal prosecution authorities is also envisaged with regard to the prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The power to prosecute perpetrators of such acts would thus be regulated as follows: the Swiss civil justice system would have jurisdiction to prosecute and try Swiss civilians and foreigners (civilian or military), while the military authorities would have jurisdiction only to prosecute and try acts committed by members of the Swiss army and persons (Swiss or foreign, civilian or military) having committed one of the above crimes against a member of the Swiss army. If … Switzerland is at war, only the military authorities have jurisdiction. The message will be discussed by Parliament in the course of 2008. 
Switzerland, Sixth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 18 March 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/CHE/6, submitted 2 July 2008, § 13.
[footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Introduction
Although international humanitarian law is intended mainly for States and parties to a conflict (e.g. armed groups), many of its provisions must also be respected by individuals. States are obliged to respect the norms, to suppress any violations, and either themselves prosecute persons responsible for grave breaches, in particular of war crimes, or extradite such persons. …
Implementation
The term implementation refers to the measures necessary to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected. States are the first ones to be responsible for implementation. They must in all cases respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, by incorporating its provisions in national legislation including in criminal law to ensure that War crimes are punishable. Furthermore, governments must take all necessary measures to suppress violations. In the case of grave breaches, the States must themselves prosecute the perpetrators, or hand them over to another contracting party for prosecution….
War crimes
War crimes are grave breaches of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 protecting persons and objects as well as other serious violations of the laws and customs that apply to an international or non-international Armed conflict. … States are under an obligation to prosecute or extradite persons suspected of having committed war crimes on their territory. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 4, 24 and 40.
Switzerland
In 2009, in response to a postulate by the Commission on Foreign Policy before the National Council, Switzerland’s Federal Council wrote: “[The Federal Council] has notably reminded the authorities of Sri Lanka of their responsibilities to carry out inquiries concerning allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law and to bring to justice persons suspected of having committed violations of international law.” 
Switzerland, National Council, Response by the Federal Council to Postulate No. 09.3472, 19 August 2009, p. 1.
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated: “As concerns Switzerland’s ability to prosecute international crimes, Parliament approved the modification of federal laws in view of the implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC”. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2010, 10 December 2010, Section 3.1.6, pp. 1057–1059.
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, which stated: “Switzerland reminds the Syrian authorities of their responsibility to investigate all allegations of violations and to bring to justice alleged perpetrators of international law, in particular those suspected of having committed war crimes”. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, Press Release, 15 November 2012.
Switzerland
In 2013, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued the “Strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts”, which states: “When allegations of violations are made, the parties to the conflict must see to it that investigations are carried out and that those who commit crimes are judged in order to avoid impunity.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, 2013, p. 11.
Syrian Arab Republic
According to the Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Syrian Arab Republic considers that the duty to try or extradite persons alleged to have committed grave breaches, as defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I, is part of customary law. It considers that no such duty exists in regard to violations committed in non-international conflicts. 
Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, 1997, Chapter 6.3.
Tajikistan
In 2008, in its report to the UN Secretary-General on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Tajikistan stated: “Breaches of the norms of international humanitarian law either in international or in non-international conflicts are offences under the criminal law of the Republic of Tajikistan and are punishable as such.” 
Tajikistan, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 14 October 2008, § 4.
Thailand
In 2009, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Thailand stated:
B.2. International instruments ratified by Thailand
48. International instruments relevant to the issue of the involvement of children in armed conflict to which Thailand is a State party include the following:
(1) Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864;
(2) Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 29 July 1899;
(3) Convention (III) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864. The Hague, 29 July 1899;
(4) Declaration (IV,1), to Prohibit, for the Term of Five Years, the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Other Methods of Similar Nature. The Hague, 29 July 1899;
(5) Declaration (IV,2) concerning Asphyxiating Gases. The Hague, 29 July 1899;
(6) Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets. The Hague, 29 July 1899;
(7) Convention for the Exemption of Hospital Ships, in Time of War, from the Payment of all Dues and Taxes Imposed for the Benefit of the State. The Hague, 21 December 1904;
(8) Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906;
(9) Convention (III) relative to the Opening of Hostilities. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(10) Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(11) Convention (V) respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(12) Convention (VI) relating to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(13) Convention (VII) relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(14) Convention (VIII) relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(15) Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(16) Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(17) Convention (XI) relative to certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(18) Convention (XIII) concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(19) Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907;
(20) Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Geneva, 17 June 1925;
(21) Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929;
(22) Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929;
(23) Procès-verbal relating to the Rules of Submarine Warfare set forth in Part IV of the Treaty of London of 22 April 1930. London, 6 November 1936;
(24) The four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, concerning the protection of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; prisoners of war; and civilians who find themselves under the rule of a foreign power in the event of international conflict;
(25) Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954;
(26) Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The Hague, 14 May 1954;
(27) Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Opened for Signature at London, Moscow and Washington. 10 April 1972;
(28) Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993;
(29) Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997.
50. Efforts have been made to raise awareness of Thailand’s personnel on the importance of these treaties and obligations, through the dissemination of video on laws concerning armed conflict and rules of engagement, and regular training.
51. In the case where a member of the armed forces is reported to have violated these obligations, an Inquiry Committee will be set up to investigate the matter. If found guilty, the person will be subjected to the disciplinary measures and judiciary procedures of the military. Ever since the end of the Second World War, no armed conflicts have occurred on Thai soil. The peacekeeping personnel of Thailand have never violated these obligations. 
Thailand, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 19 July 2011, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/THA/1, submitted 30 October 2009, §§ 48 and 50–51.
Uganda
In the Annexure to the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation signed between the Government of the Republic of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement in 2007, the contracting Parties,
[h]aving signed the Principal Agreement by which the parties committed themselves to implementing accountability and reconciliation with respect to the conflict;
[h]aving established … that there is national consensus in Uganda that adequate mechanisms exist or can be expeditiously established to try offences committed during the conflict;
[r]ecalling their commitment to preventing impunity and promoting redress in accordance with the Constitution and international obligations, and recalling, in this connection the requirements of the [1998] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in particular the principle of complementarity;
Now therefore agree as follows:
Inquiry into the past and related matters
4. The Government shall by law establish a body to be conferred with all the necessary powers and immunities, whose functions shall include:
(b) to inquire into human rights violations committed during the conflict, giving particular attention to the experiences of women and children;
5. In the fulfilment of its functions, the body shall give precedence to any investigations or formal proceedings instituted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Detailed guidelines and working practices shall be established to regulate the relationship between the body and any other adjudicatory body seized of a case relating to this Agreement.
Legal and Institutional Framework
7. A special division of the High Court of Uganda shall be established to try individuals who are alleged to have committed serious crimes during the conflict.
8. The special division of the High Court shall have a registry dedicated to the work of the division and in particular, shall make arrangements to facilitate the protection and participation of witnesses, victims, women and children.
Investigations and Prosecutions
10. The Government shall establish a unit for carrying out investigations and prosecutions in support of trials and other formal proceedings as envisaged by the Principal Agreement.
13. Investigations shall:
(a) Seek to identify individuals who are alleged to have planned or carried out widespread, systematic, or serious attacks directed against civilians;
(b) Reflect the broad pattern of serious crimes and violations committed during the conflict;
(c) Give particular attention to crimes and violations against women and children committed during the conflict.
14. Prosecutions shall focus on individuals alleged to have planned or carried out widespread, systematic, or serious attacks directed against civilians or who are alleged to have committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.
Provisions of General Application
23. … the Government shall ensure that serious crimes committed during the conflict are addressed by the special Division of the High Court; traditional justice mechanisms; and any other alternative justice mechanism established under the Principal Agreement, but not the military courts. 
Annexure to the Agreement on Accountability and Reconciliation signed between the Government of the Republic of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement (LRA/M) on 29th June 2007, Juba, 19 February 2008, Preamble and Articles 4(b), 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 23.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In the aftermath of the war in the South Atlantic, the UK Metropolitan Police investigated allegations according to which criminal offences had been committed by UK soldiers during that conflict. However, in 1994, in reply to a question in the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor stated:
The Director of Public Prosecution has … announced that she has concluded her consideration of the inquiries carried out by the Metropolitan Police into allegations that criminal offences had been committed by members of the Parachute Regiment during their operations in the Falkland Islands in 1982 … She has concluded that the evidence is not such as to afford a realistic prospect of conviction of any person for any criminal offence and has therefore decided that no criminal proceedings should be instituted. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Reply by the Lord Chancellor to a question, Hansard, 14 July 1994, Vol. 556, col. 1961.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In July 1997, UK special forces arrested a leading Bosnian war crime suspect, in order to bring him before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. 
Marcus Tanner and Fran Abrams, “Commando swoop on Serbs”, The Independent, 11 July 1997, p. 1.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for Defence stated:
The offences contained in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) reflect international law provisions that were already applicable to the conduct of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces in any theatre of engagement. The ICC Statute does not therefore impose new conditions.
The consequences for our forces of UK ratification of the ICC Statute were carefully examined in preparation for the ICC Act 2001. Under the Statute, investigation and, if necessary prosecution of any allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide by a UK national would be carried out by the UK. The Court would intervene only if it determined that a state was unwilling or unable to pursue a particular case, but it is inconceivable that the UK would ever be unable or unwilling to investigate or take appropriate action. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Defence, Hansard, 28 January 2003, Vol. 398, Written Answers, col. 836W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister stated: “We are making it clear to Iraqi commanders in the field that if they use chemical or biological weapons, they will be deservedly prosecuted with the utmost severity.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 26 March 2003, Vol. 402, Debates, col. 283.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We will investigate any allegation of war crimes against UK forces in the present conflict. If we find evidence to justify prosecution, we will seek to bring those responsible to justice. As regards allegations of war crimes committed by members of the Saddam regime prior to this conflict, the Government is assessing, in conjunction with coalition partners, how these can best be investigated and those responsible brought to justice. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 11 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 438W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons on “the circumstances in which the International Criminal Court could intervene to prosecute UK citizens in cases where the British judicial system was unwilling or unable to do so”, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
In accordance with the complementarity provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (which gave domestic effect to the Statute), the relevant UK authorities will, where appropriate, exercise jurisdiction in respect of allegations against UK service personnel, UK Citizens or residents. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 28 April 2003, Vol. 404, Written Answers, col. 123W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, the Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States wrote:
The United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners, working through the Coalition Provisional Authority, shall inter alia, provide for security in and for the provisional administration of Iraq, including by: … promoting accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime …  
United Kingdom, Letter by the Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States to the United Nations to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/538, 8 May 2003.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister stated:
Mr. Duncan Smith: Given the Prime Minister’s answer, the whole House also will have heard the statement by President Bush that any Iraqi commander who commits a war crime will be prosecuted. Will he confirm that that dictum goes right to the top and, despite some reports of immunity, includes Saddam Hussein himself?
The Prime Minister: There was a possibility, if Saddam Hussein was prepared to leave voluntarily, quit Iraq and spare his people the conflict, that we could have ensured that that happened. The circumstances in relation to any immunity might then have been different, but it is reasonably clear, I think, that that will not happen. I think that it is very important that those in senior positions of responsibility in Saddam Hussein’s regime realise that they will be held accountable for what they have done. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 19 March 2003, Vol. 401, Debates, col. 931.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s rules of engagement do not strictly in law provide UK service personnel with immunity from the UK legal process. However, they are robust and are drawn up in accordance with international and domestic law. Therefore, acting within the rules is very likely in practice to provide protection from prosecution.
My Lords, the reason it cannot be certain in law is because rules of engagement are for guidance only and do not constitute law, which is for the courts to determine. I shall try to assist by making the distinction between immunity from legal process – which is the subject of the Question – where there can be no guarantee that legal process may be instituted, and practical consequences. Where a member of the Armed Forces acts within the rules of engagement – that could, of course, be a matter for the court eventually to have to decide – the matter is unlikely to go to court and almost certainly would not result in a finding of liability or guilt. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statements by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 13 October 2003, Vol. 653, Debates, cols. 599–600.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee Against Torture, the United Kingdom stated:
As indicated in the third report, the United Kingdom ratified Protocols I and II to the Geneva Convention on 28 January 1998. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Act 2001 makes minor amendments to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. These ensure that the provisions for consent to prosecutions for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions under the 1957 Act are consistent with those for the prosecutions under the ICC Act. In the case of such offences, proceedings will not begin without the consent of the Attorney-General or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate. 
United Kingdom, Fourth periodic report to the Committee Against Torture, UN Doc. CAT/C/67/Add.2, 27 May 2004, submitted 6 November 2003, § 60.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2005, in its Annual Report on Human Rights, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:
We have made it clear that we will not hesitate to act where British troops fail to uphold the high standards of behaviour set out in the Geneva Conventions and the rest of international humanitarian law. The individuals accused of the mistreatment of Iraqi civilians at a humanitarian aid distribution centre near Basra in May 2003 have stood trial and those found guilty have been sentenced. 
United Kingdom, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Human Rights, Annual Report 2005, Cm 6606, July 2005, p. 183.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning “the bringing to justice of suspected war criminals”, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, stated:
The Government takes all allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity very seriously and is fully committed to its obligations under international law, which it has implemented through the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, the International Criminal Court Act 2001 and section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The prosecution of particular cases in England and Wales is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The recent successful trial of Faryadi Zardad, found guilty in July 2005 of torture and hostage taking in Afghanistan, demonstrated the commitment on the part of the police and CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] to pursue major war crimes cases. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, Hansard, 28 November 2005, Vol. 440, Written Answers, col. 50W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the War Crimes Act 1991, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office, stated:
The War Crimes Act 1991 was passed by Parliament to allow the prosecution of war crimes committed during the Second World War in Germany or German occupied territory by people who are now British citizens or resident in the UK.
The Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit, which disbanded in 1999, conducted enquiries into a large number of cases arising from the 1989 Report of the War Crimes Inquiry and elsewhere. Most cases did not lead to criminal proceedings because either the suspect was no longer alive or there was insufficient evidence for prosecution. There has been one conviction under the Act. Anthony Sawoniuk was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1999 and died in custody in 2005. In one other prosecution, against Syzmon Serafinowicz in 1997, the court found the defendant unfit to plead and the then Attorney General entered a Nolle Prosequi (permanent stay of prosecution).
The Metropolitan Police continues to have lead responsibility for the investigation of allegations of war crimes under the Act. defendant unfit to plead and the then Attorney General entered a Nolle Prosequi (permanent stay of prosecution). The Metropolitan Police continues to have lead responsibility for the investigation of allegations of war crimes under the Act. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, Hansard, 17 March 2006, Vol. 443, Written Answers, cols. 2605W–2606W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the United Kingdom’s compliance with the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, particularly with its Articles 1 and 147, the UK Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The United Kingdom has signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention and complies with its provisions. Every appropriate opportunity is taken in our bilateral relations and through appropriate international bodies to promote respect for the convention and its articles.
The UK has enacted legislation (Geneva Conventions Act 1957, as amended) to enable prosecutions in respect of the grave breaches set out in article 147 in the UK. Alleged breaches of the convention relevant to the UK that are brought to our attention are investigated by the appropriate authorities. Prosecution decisions are made in accordance with criminal law principles by the appropriate prosecuting authority. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 June 2007, Vol. 462, Written Answers, col. 200W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2008, the UK Army published the Aitken Report which investigated cases where members of the British Army were alleged or proven to have mistreated or killed Iraqi civilians outside the context of immediate combat operations in 2003 or early 2004. The Aitken Report stated:
27. Four cases involving Iraqi deaths as a result of deliberate abuse have been investigated, and subsequently referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority (APA) on the basis there was a prima facie case that the victims had been killed unlawfully by British troops. The APA preferred charges on three of these cases on the basis that it considered there was a realistic prospect of conviction, and that trial was in the public and service interest; and yet not one conviction for murder or manslaughter has been recorded.
28. The Army’s position is straightforward on the issue of prosecution. Legal advice is available for commanding officers and higher authorities to assist with decisions on referring appropriate cases to the APA [Army Prosecuting Authority]. The Director Army Legal Services (DALS), who is responsible to the Adjutant General for the provision of legal services to the Army, is additionally appointed by The Queen as the APA. In that capacity, he has responsibility for decisions on whether to direct trial for all cases referred by the military chain of command, and for the prosecution of all cases tried before courts-martial, the Standing Civilian Court and the Summary Appeal Court and for appeals before the Courts-Martial Appeal Court and the House of Lords. DALS delegates these functions to ALS officers appointed as prosecutors in the APA, and Brigadier Prosecutions has day to day responsibility for the APA. The APA is under the general superintendence of the Attorney-General and is, rightly, independent of the Army chain of command: the APA alone decides whether to direct court-martial trial and the appropriate charges, and neither the Army chain of command, nor Ministers, officials nor anyone else can make those decisions. However complex the situation in which it finds itself, the Army must operate within the law at all times; once the APA has made its decision (based on the evidence and the law), the Army has to accept that the consequences of prosecuting particular individuals or of particular charges may have a negative impact on its reputation.
29. The absence of a single conviction for murder or manslaughter as a result of deliberate abuse in Iraq may appear worrying, but it is explicable. Evidence has to be gathered (and, as already mentioned, this was not an easy process); that evidence has to be presented in court; and defendants are presumed innocent unless the prosecution can prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is a stiff test – no different to the one that applies in our civilian courts. In the broader context, the outcome from prosecutions brought to court martial by the APA is almost exactly comparable with the equivalent civilian courts: for example, as at the end of 2006, the conviction rates after trial in the court martial system stood at 12% as compared with 13% in the Crown Courts. It is inevitable that some prosecutions will fail; but this does not mean that they should not have been brought in the first place. It is the courts, after all, that determine guilt, not the prosecutors. Indeed, the fact that only a small number of all the 200-odd cases investigated by Service Police in Iraq resulted in prosecution could be interpreted as both a positive and a negative indicator: positive, in that the evidence and the context did not support the preferring of criminal charges; but negative, in that we know that the Service Police were hugely hampered, in some cases, in their ability to collect evidence of a high enough standard for charges to be preferred or for cases to be successfully prosecuted.
30. It is important to note that none of this implies any fundamental flaws in the effectiveness of the key elements of the Military Criminal Justice System.
Developments Since 2003
31. But some weaknesses in the system have been identified as a result of experience, and rectified. … To improve the quality of legal advice in training, and to capture lessons learned on operations, an Operational Law Branch was fully established in January 2006 under an operationally-experienced Army Legal Services Brigadier. …
32. The effectiveness of the RMP [Royal Military Police] has similarly been enhanced by a number of measures implemented since 2004. 
United Kingdom, Army, The Aitken Report: An Investigation into Cases of Deliberate Abuse and Unlawful Killing in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, 25 January 2008, §§ 27–32.
[footnote in original omitted]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2008, in a written statement to the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated:
After wide consultation and after considering the representations that I have received, and with the full support of the military chain of command, including the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the General Staff, I have decided that the right thing to do is to establish a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. The inquiry will examine the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa [while detained by British armed forces in Iraq in September 2003]. The terms of reference and other details will be made public once they have been established in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and the inquiry report will be published.
This reinforces my determination, and that of the Chief of the General Staff, to do everything we can to understand how it came to be that Mr Mousa lost his life. The Army has no wish to hide anything in this respect. It has looked at itself very critically since 2003, and has made a number of significant changes that were enumerated in Brigadier Aitken’s report of January this year. It nevertheless remains anxious to learn all the lessons that it possibly can from this disturbing incident. Overall, the conduct of tens of thousands of our people in Iraq has been exemplary; it is a tiny number who have caused a stain on the reputation of the British Army. But that does not mean we can allow these events to pass without looking into them thoroughly.
I hope this independent inquiry will reassure the public that no stone has been left unturned. The Army and the Ministry of Defence will be giving the fullest co-operation to this inquiry. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written Statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 14 May 2008, Vol. 475, Written Statements, cols. 60W–61W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2008, in a written statement to the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated regarding the public inquiry into the death of Mr Baha Mousa while in detention by British armed forces in Iraq:
The inquiry will be held under the Inquiries Act 2005 …
The inquiry’s terms of reference are:
To investigate and report on the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him, taking account of the investigations that have already taken place, in particular where responsibility lay for approving the practice of conditioning detainees by any members of the 1st Battalion The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment in Iraq in 2003, and to make recommendations.
In my Statement on 14 May, I described the death of Mr Mousa as a disturbing incident; this was not just because a man died in the custody of British soldiers, but because an investigation by the Royal Military Police and subsequent court martial highlighted further important questions that needed to be answered. I am confident that the terms of reference that I have set out not only will enable the inquiry to conduct a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the death, but are sufficiently focused to ensure that its conclusions can be reached in a timely manner.
The inquiry will, of course, have the full support of the Ministry of Defence. Much work is in hand to ensure that the inquiry has the material that it needs and that those who will be required to assist the inquiry are given legal advice. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 21 July 2008, Vol. 703, Written Statements, col. 65WS.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2009, in a written answer to the House of Lords, a UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
We have called for an independent and credible process to examine allegations of war crimes by both sides in Sri Lanka. Both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I raised this with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister during his recent visit to the UK. Under international law, it is the primary responsibility of the state against whose forces allegations are made to investigate possible war crimes committed by its own forces.
We have encouraged the Sri Lanka Government to ensure that their own domestic process, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, is open and transparent and works with the UN Secretary-General’s panel of three experts whose remit is to advise on accountability issues. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written Answer by a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 18 November 2010, Vol. 722, Written Answers, col. WA244.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (2010) states:
An essential part of protecting civilians in armed conflict is to ensure that there is no impunity for those who commit serious crimes during armed conflict, and that perpetrators are held to account at both a domestic level and at an international level where necessary. … The international community needs to ensure that, where serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law occur, those who bear the greatest responsibility for international crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity are prosecuted. We also believe that ensuring justice for such crimes is an integral part of post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. The UK is committed to ensure such perpetrators are held to account. 
United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, March 2010, p. 10.
United States of America
At the CDDH, the United States stated with respect to a proposal to characterize the use of certain prohibited weapons as a grave breach under Article 85 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I: “Grave breaches were meant to be the most serious type of crime; Parties have an obligation to punish or extradite those guilty of them.” 
United States, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, Doc. CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 280, § 7.
United States of America
The 1979 version of the US Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program stated:
It is the policy of the Department of Defense to ensure that:
2. A program, designed to prevent violations of the law of war, is implemented by the U.S. Armed Forces.
3. Alleged violations of the law of war, whether committed by or against U.S. or enemy personnel, are promptly reported, thoroughly investigated, and, where appropriate, remedied by corrective action. 
United States, Department of Defense, Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 10 July 1979, Section C(2) and (3).
The Directive also stated: “The Armed Forces of the U.S. shall institute and implement programs to prevent violations of the law of war.” 
United States, Department of Defense, Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 10 July 1979, Section E(b).
United States of America
In 1987, the deputy legal adviser of the US Department of State, referring to Articles 80–85 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, affirmed: “We support the principle that all necessary measures for the implementation of the rules of humanitarian law be taken without delay.” Referring to Articles 85–89 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, he added:
We support the principle that the appropriate authorities take all reasonable measures to prevent acts contrary to the applicable rules of humanitarian law, take all appropriate steps to bring to justice any persons who have wilfully committed such acts. 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 428.
United States of America
In 1991, in a diplomatic note to Iraq, the United States stated:
The Government of the United States reminds the Government of Iraq that under International Law, violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925, or related International Laws of armed conflict are war crimes, and individuals guilty of such violations may be subject to prosecution at any time … This includes members of the Iraqi armed forces and civilian government officials. 
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.
In another such diplomatic note, the United States reiterated: “Iraqi individuals who are guilty of … war crimes … are … subject to prosecution at any time.” 
United States, Department of State, Diplomatic note to Iraq, Washington, 21 January 1991, annexed to Letter dated 22 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22130, 22 January 1991, p. 4.
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated:
[Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77] is the foundation for the US military law of war program. It contains four policies:
• A program, designed to prevent violations of the law of war … [will be] implemented by the US Armed Forces.
• Alleged violations of the law of war, whether committed by or against US or enemy personnel … [will be] promptly reported, thoroughly investigated, and, where appropriate, remedied by corrective action. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 633.
The report also stated:
Each service has issued directives to implement [Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77] with respect to the reporting and investigation of suspected violations of the law of war committed by or against its personnel. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 633.
United States of America
The 1998 version of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Directive on the Law of War Program, reissuing the one of 1979, provides:
It is the DoD policy to ensure that:
4.2 An effective program to prevent violations of the law of war is implemented by the DoD Components.
4.3 All reportable incidents committed by or against U.S. or enemy persons are promptly reported, thoroughly investigated, and, where appropriate, remedied by corrective action. 
United States, Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 9 December 1998, Section 4(2) and (3).
The Directive further stated: “The Heads of the DoD Components shall … institute and implement effective programs to prevent violations of the law of war.” 
United States, Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 9 December 1998, Section 5(3)(2).
United States of America
The Report on US Practice states:
It is the opinio juris of the US that all nations are obligated to punish members of their armed forces guilty of serious violations of the laws of war. As to other persons suspected of war crimes, there is a general obligation to try them or to cooperate with another state willing to try them in accordance with international fair trial standards. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 6.3.
The report also states that it is the opinio juris of the United States that “there is a general obligation to try [persons suspected of war crimes other than members of its own armed forces] or to cooperate with another state willing to try them in accordance with international fair trial standards”. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 6.4.
United States of America
In 2003, the Permanent Representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom to the United Nations wrote in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council:
The United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners, working through the Coalition Provisional Authority, shall inter alia, provide for security in and for the provisional administration of Iraq, including by … promoting accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime. 
United States, Letter by the Permanent Representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom to the United Nations to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2003/538, 8 May 2003.
United States of America
In 2005, in its second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, the United States stated:
107. In response to these allegations of [Abu Ghraib prison] abuse, the U.S. Government has acted swiftly to investigate and take action to address the abuses. The United States is investigating allegations of abuse thoroughly and making structural, personnel, and policy changes necessary to reduce the risk of further such incidents. All credible allegations of inappropriate conduct by U.S. personnel are thoroughly investigated. A rapid response to allegations of abuse, accompanied by accountability, sends an unequivocal signal to all U.S. military personnel and the international community that mistreatment of detainees will not be tolerated under any circumstances. To the extent allegations of misconduct have been levied against private contractors, the U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ] has conducted or initiated investigations. For example, following the reports at Abu Ghraib, the Department of Justice received referrals from Military Investigators regarding contract employees and their potential involvement in the abuses. DOJ subsequently opened an investigation.
108. At the direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the military chain of command, nine different senior-level investigative bodies convened to review military policy from top-to-bottom in order to understand the facts in these cases and identify any systemic factors that may have been relevant. The assignment of these entities was to identify and investigate the circumstances of all alleged instances of abuse, review command structure and policy, and recommend personnel and policy changes to improve accountability and reduce the possibility of future abuse.
116. The Department of Defense takes all allegations of abuse seriously and investigates them. Those people who are found to have committed unlawful acts are held accountable and disciplined as the circumstances warrant. Investigations are thorough and have high priority. 
United States, Second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 13 January 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/48/Add.3/Rev.1, submitted 6 May 2005, Annex 1, pp. 76 and 79, §§ 107–108 and 116.
United States of America
In February 2008, in a statement to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employees, the Director of the CIA stated:
The Department of Defense announced today that war crimes charges related to the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been sworn against six detainees at Guantánamo. Five of those men … were previously held within CIA’s high-value terrorist interrogation program. Our government believes that these six individuals, among others, played important roles in planning and promoting the murder of thousands of innocent people. Now that formal charges have been sworn, the Convening Authority of the Office of Military Commissions of the Department of Defense will determine if sufficient probable cause exists to refer the case for trial by military commission. 
United States, Statement by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, “Director’s Statement on 9/11 War Crimes Charges”, 11 February 2008.
United States of America
In June 2010, the co-heads of delegation for an interagency group from the U.S. Government attending the Review Conference for the International Criminal Court at Kampala, Uganda, provided a teleconference briefing for US-based journalists. In his introduction, the US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues stated that “our presentation at all of those sessions [introductory meetings and at an intervention during the previous day of the conference] emphasized the strong support of the United States Government for accountability for … war crimes”. 
United States, Briefing by the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, on the International Criminal Court Conference in Kampala, Uganda, 2 June 2010, p. 2.
United States of America
In November 2010, in responding to the recommendations made by the Working Group of the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of US human rights records, the US Department of State’s legal adviser stated:
Most of these recommendations referred to our country’s continuing armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against Al Qaeda and associated forces. … Allegations of past abuse of detainees by U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo have been investigated and appropriate corrective action taken. 
United States, Statement by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, before the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, 9 November 2010, p. 2.
Venezuela
In 2011, in its core document forming part of Venezuela’s reports on international human rights instruments, Venezuela stated: “Within the framework of the protection of human rights, the Venezuelan State has an obligation to punish crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are not time-barred and cannot be subject to pardon or amnesty.” 
Venezuela, Human rights instruments core document forming part of Venezuela’s reports, 22 February 2013, UN Doc. HRI/CORE/VEN/2011, submitted 5 July 2011, § 123.
Viet Nam
In 2008, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the representative of Viet Nam stated: “It is States that bear primary responsibility … to deal with … violations of international humanitarian law.” 
Viet Nam, Statement by the representative of Viet Nam before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 27 May 2008, p. 14.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In Order No. 985-1/91 issued in 1991, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) stated:
1.YPA units have the duty to secure in the area of their operations full and unconditional implementation of rules of international humanitarian law of armed conflicts and suppress violations of those rules.
2.War crimes and other grave breaches of norms of law on warfare are serious criminal offences and call for criminal liability of all perpetrators. Appropriate measures should be carried out immediately against all perpetrators aimed at suppressing unnecessary and excessive suffering of [the] civilian population, wounded, prisoners and all other persons affected by military operations.
3.In order to prevent violations of international law of warfare, officers and all other members of [the] YPA are authorized to apply all measures, including use of force, against all perpetrators, regardless of their affiliation to different existing forces. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army, Legal Department, Order No. 985-1/91, 3 October 1991, §§ 1–3.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on arrest and detention of persons responsible for acts within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, the UN Security Council:
Determined to put an end to violations of international humanitarian law and serious acts of violence directed against refugees, and that effective measures be taken to bring to justice the persons who are responsible for such crimes,
1. Urges States to arrest and detain, in accordance with their national law and relevant standards of international law, pending prosecution by the International Tribunal for Rwanda or by the appropriate national authorities, persons found within their territory against whom there is sufficient evidence that they were responsible for acts within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for Rwanda;
5. Urges States, on whose territory serious acts of violence in the refugee camps have taken place, to arrest and detain, in accordance with their national law and relevant standards of international law, and submit to the appropriate authorities for the purpose of prosecution persons against whom there is sufficient evidence that they have incited or participated in such acts. 
UN Security Council, Res. 978, 27 February 1995, preamble and §§ 1 and 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council called upon the Taliban
to investigate urgently [the attacks on the United Nations personnel in the Taliban-held territories of Afghanistan, including the killing of the two Afghan staff members of the World Food Programme and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Jalalabad, and of the Military Adviser to the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan in Kabul], and to keep the United Nations informed about the results of the investigation. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1193, 28 August 1998, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Kosovo, the UN Security Council underlined “the need for the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to bring to justice those members of the security forces who have been involved in the mistreatment of civilians and the deliberate destruction of property”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1199, 23 September 1998, § 14, voting record: 14-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on children in armed conflict, the UN Security Council emphasized “the responsibilities of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other egregious crimes perpetrated against children”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1460, 30 January 2003, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003, the UN Security Council condemned “violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have taken place in Côte d’Ivoire since 19 September 2002” and stressed “the need to bring to justice those responsible”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1464, 4 February 2003, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
2. Condemns the massacres and other systematic violations of International Humanitarian Law and human rights perpetrated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular sexual violence against women and girls as a tool of warfare and atrocities perpetrated in the Ituri area by the Mouvement de Libération du Congo (MLC) and the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie/National (RCD/N) troops, as well as the acts of violence recently perpetrated by the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) forces, and reiterates that there will be no impunity for such acts and that the perpetrators will be held accountable;
3. Stresses that the military officers whose names are mentioned in the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in connection with serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights should be brought to justice, through further investigation, and if warranted by that investigation, held accountable through a credible judicial process.
5. Strongly encourages the Congolese parties forming the transitional government to establish as soon as possible a Truth and Reconciliation Commission charged with determining responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, as set forth in the resolutions adopted in the framework of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue in Sun City in April 2002;
6. Reiterates that all parties claiming a role in the future of the Democratic Republic of the Congo must demonstrate their respect for human rights, International Humanitarian Law, as well as the security and well-being of civilian populations and emphasizes that the transitional government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo will have to restore law and order and respect for human rights, and end impunity, across the entire country;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to increase the number of personnel in MONUC’s human rights component to assist and enhance, in accordance with its current mandate, the capacity of the Congolese parties to investigate all the serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights perpetrated on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo since the beginning of the conflict in August 1998, and requests also the Secretary-General, in consultation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to make recommendations to the Council on other ways to help the transitional government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo address the issue of impunity. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1468, 20 March 2003, §§ 2–3 and 5–7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council:
Emphasizes again the need to bring to justice those responsible for the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have taken place in Côte d’Ivoire since 19 September 2002, and reiterates its demand that all Ivorian parties take all the necessary measures to prevent further violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly against civilian populations whatever their origins. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1479, 13 May 2003, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the UN Security Council:
Affirming the need for accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime,
3. Appeals to Member States to deny safe haven to those members of the previous Iraqi regime who are alleged to be responsible for crimes and atrocities and to support actions to bring them to justice. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1483, 22 May 2003, preamble and § 3, voting record: 14-0-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all the parties to the conflict in Ituri and in particular in Bunia cease hostilities immediately and reiterates that international humanitarian law must be respected, and that there will be no impunity for violators. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1484, 30 May 2003, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Strongly condemns the acts of violence systematically perpetrated against civilians, including the massacres, as well as other atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, in particular, sexual violence against women and girls, stresses the need to bring to justice those responsible, including those at the command level, and urges all parties, including the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to take all necessary steps to prevent further violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular those committed against civilians. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1493, 28 July 2003, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the protection of UN personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones, the UN Security Council:
Emphasizing that there are existing prohibitions under international law against attacks knowingly and intentionally directed against personnel involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission undertaken in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations which in situations of armed conflicts constitute war crimes, and recalling the need for States to end impunity for such criminal acts,
1. Expresses its strong condemnation of all forms of violence, including, inter alia, murder, rape and sexual assault, intimidation, armed robbery, abduction, hostage-taking, kidnapping, harassment and illegal arrest and detention to which those participating in humanitarian operations are increasingly exposed, as well as attacks on humanitarian convoys and acts of destruction and looting of their property;
2. Urges States to ensure that crimes against such personnel do not remain unpunished;
5. Expresses its determination to take appropriate steps in order to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, including, inter alia, by:
(a) Requesting the Secretary-General to seek the inclusion of, and that host countries include, key provisions of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, among others, those regarding the prevention of attacks against members of United Nations operations, the establishment of such attacks as crimes punishable by law and the prosecution or extradition of offenders, in future as well as, if necessary, in existing status-of-forces, status-of-missions and host country agreements negotiated between the United Nations and those countries, mindful of the importance of the timely conclusion of such agreements;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to address in all his country-specific situation reports, the issue of the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel, including specific acts of violence against such personnel, remedial actions taken to prevent similar incidents and actions taken to identify and hold accountable those who commit such acts, and to explore and propose additional ways and means to enhance the safety and security of such personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1502, 26 August 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, 5(a) and 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the ICTY and the ICTR, the UN Security Council:
Recalling and reaffirming in the strongest terms the statement of 23 July 2002 made by the President of the Security Council (S/PRST/2002/21), which endorsed the ICTY’s strategy for completing investigations by the end of 2004, all trial activities at first instance by the end of 2008, and all of its work in 2010 (ICTY Completion Strategy) (S/2002/678), by concentrating on the prosecution and trial of the most senior leaders suspected of being most responsible for crimes within the ICTY’s jurisdiction and transferring cases involving those who may not bear this level of responsibility to competent national jurisdictions, as appropriate, as well as the strengthening of the capacity of such jurisdictions,
Urging the ICTR to formalize a detailed strategy, modelled on the ICTY Completion Strategy, to transfer cases involving intermediate- and lower-rank accused to competent national jurisdictions, as appropriate, including Rwanda, in order to allow the ICTR to achieve its objective of completing investigations by the end of 2004, all trial activities at first instance by the end of 2008, and all of its work in 2010 (ICTR Completion Strategy),
Noting that the above-mentioned Completion Strategies in no way alter the obligation of Rwanda and the countries of the former Yugoslavia to investigate those accused whose cases would not be tried by the ICTR or ICTY and take appropriate action with respect to indictment and prosecution, while bearing in mind the primacy of the ICTY and ICTR over national courts,
Noting that the strengthening of national judicial systems is crucially important to the rule of law in general and to the implementation of the ICTY and ICTR Completion Strategies in particular,
Noting that an essential prerequisite to achieving the objectives of the ICTY Completion Strategy is the expeditious establishment under the auspices of the High Representative and early functioning of a special chamber within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the “War Crimes Chamber”) and the subsequent referral by the ICTY of cases of lower- or intermediate-rank accused to the Chamber,
1. Calls on the international community to assist national jurisdictions, as part of the completion strategy, in improving their capacity to prosecute cases transferred from the ICTY and the ICTR and encourages the ICTY and ICTR Presidents, Prosecutors, and Registrars to develop and improve their outreach programmes;
5. Calls on the donor community to support the work of the High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina in creating a special chamber, within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to adjudicate allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1503, 28 August 2003, preamble and §§ 1 and 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on children and armed conflict, the UN Security Council emphasized “the responsibilities of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other egregious crimes perpetrated against children”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1539, 22 April 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Urging all the parties to take the necessary steps to prevent and put an end to violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and underlining that there will be no impunity for violators,
Welcoming the commitment by the Government of Sudan to investigate the atrocities and prosecute those responsible,
1. Calls on the Government of Sudan to fulfil immediately all of the commitments it made in the 3 July 2004 Communiqué, including particularly … by advancing independent investigation in cooperation with the United Nations of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law …
6. Demands that the Government of Sudan fulfil its commitments to disarm the Janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice Janjaweed leaders and their associates who have incited and carried out human rights and international humanitarian law violations and other atrocities, and further requests the Secretary-General to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, to the Council on the progress or lack thereof by the Government of Sudan on this matter and expresses its intention to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations on the Government of Sudan, in the event of non-compliance. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1556, 30 July 2004, preamble and §§ 1 and 6, voting record: 13-0-2.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the report of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates its call for the Government of Sudan to end the climate of impunity in Darfur by identifying and bringing to justice all those responsible, including members of popular defense forces and Janjaweed militias, for the widespread human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, and insists that the Government of Sudan take all appropriate steps to stop all violence and atrocities. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1564, 18 September 2004, § 7, voting record: 11-0-4.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Strongly condemns violence and other violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, in particular those perpetrated against civilians, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and demands that all parties and Governments concerned in the region, including the Government of National Unity and Transition, take without delay all necessary steps to bring to justice those responsible for these violations and to ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law, as appropriate with relevant international assistance, as well as to guarantee the security and well-being of the civilian population. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1565, 1 October 2004, § 19, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on reports on the Sudan, the UN Security Council condemned “all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties” and emphasized “the need for perpetrators of all such crimes to be brought to justice without delay”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1574, 19 November 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council called upon the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of Rwanda “to cooperate unreservedly with the Government of Burundi to ensure that the investigation into the Gatumba massacre [of 13 August 2004] is completed and that those responsible are brought to justice”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1577, 1 December 2004, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates its serious concern regarding the continuation of hostilities by armed groups and militias in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in the provinces of North and South Kivu and in the Ituri district, and by the grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law that accompany them, [and] calls on the Government of National Unity and Transition to bring the perpetrators to justice without delay. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1592, 30 March 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council:
Convinced of the need, for the consolidation of peace and reconciliation in Burundi, to establish the truth, investigate the crimes, and identify and bring to justice those bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Burundi since independence, to deter future crimes of this nature, and to bring an end to the climate of impunity, in Burundi and in the region of the Great Lakes of Africa as a whole. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1606, 20 June 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on children and armed conflict, the UN Security Council recalled “the responsibilities of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other egregious crimes perpetrated against children”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1612, 26 July 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates its serious concern at all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Côte d’Ivoire, and urges the Ivorian authorities to investigate these violations without delay in order to put an end to impunity. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1633, 21 October 2005, § 20, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Deplores the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law carried out by these militias and groups and stresses the urgent need for those responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1635, 28 October 2005, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Reiterating its serious concern regarding the continuation of hostilities by militias and foreign armed groups in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and at the threat they pose to civilians …
Deploring the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed by these groups and militias and stressing the urgent need for those responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice.
18. Reiterates its call upon the Congolese authorities to bring to justice without delay perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, and reiterates that MONUC’s mandate, as set out in resolution 1565, includes cooperation with efforts to bring such perpetrators to justice. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1649, 21 December 2005, preamble and § 18, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Great Lakes region, the UN Security Council:
6. Urges all States concerned to take action to bring to justice perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and to take appropriate measures of international cooperation and judicial assistance in this regard;
7. Expresses its support for the efforts by States in the region to build independent and reliable national judicial institutions in order to put an end to impunity. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1653, 27 January 2006, §§ 6–7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council:
7. Reaffirms that ending impunity is essential if a society in conflict or recovering from conflict is to come to terms with past abuses committed against civilians affected by armed conflict and to prevent future such abuses, draws attention to the full range of justice and reconciliation mechanisms to be considered, including national, international and “mixed” criminal courts and tribunals and truth and reconciliation commissions, and notes that such mechanisms can promote not only individual responsibility for serious crimes, but also peace, truth, reconciliation and the rights of the victims;
8. Emphasizes in this context the responsibility of States to comply with their relevant obligations to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law, while recognizing, for States in or recovering from armed conflict, the need to restore or build independent national judicial systems and institutions;
9. Calls on States that have not already done so to consider ratifying the instruments of international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, and to take appropriate legislative, judicial and administrative measures to implement their obligations under these instruments;
11. Calls upon all parties concerned to ensure that all peace processes, peace agreements and post-conflict recovery and reconstruction planning have regard for the special needs of women and children and include specific measures for the protection of civilians including … (v) the re-establishment of the rule of law, and (vi) the ending of impunity;
23. Condemns all attacks deliberately targeting United Nations and associated personnel involved in humanitarian missions, as well as other humanitarian personnel, urges States on whose territory such attacks occur to prosecute or extradite those responsible, and welcomes in this regard the adoption on 8 December 2005 by the General Assembly of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1674, 28 April 2006, §§ 7–9, 11 and 23, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Deplores the persistence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular those carried out by these militias and foreign armed groups and by elements of the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC), and stresses the urgent need for those responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1711, 29 September 2006, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council:
Reiterating its firm condemnation of all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Côte d’Ivoire,
30. Reiterates its serious concern at all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Côte d’Ivoire, and urges the Ivorian authorities to investigate these violations without delay in order to put an end to impunity. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1721, 1 November 2006, preamble and § 30, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Deplores the persistence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular those carried out by these militias and foreign armed groups and by elements of the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC), and stresses the urgent need for those responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1736, 22 December 2006, §§ 9 and 10, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council:
Emphasizing that there are existing prohibitions under international humanitarian law against attacks intentionally directed against civilians, as such, which in situations of armed conflict constitute war crimes, and recalling the need for States to end impunity for such criminal acts,
Recalling that the States Parties to the Geneva Conventions have an obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed a grave breach of these Conventions, and an obligation to try them before their own courts, regardless of their nationality, or may hand them over for trial to another concerned State provided this State has made out a prima facie case against the said persons,
4. Reaffirms its condemnation of all incitements to violence against civilians in situations of armed conflict, further reaffirms the need to bring to justice, in accordance with applicable international law, individuals who incite such violence, and indicates its willingness, when authorizing missions, to consider, where appropriate, steps in response to media broadcast inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
7. Emphasizes the responsibility of States to comply with the relevant obligations under international law to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1738, 23 December 2006, preamble and §§ 4 and 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Reiterating its grave concern at the presence of armed groups and militias in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly in the Ituri district and in North and South Kivu …
Deploring again the persistence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular those carried out by these militias and armed groups and by elements of the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC), the Congolese National Police (PNC) and other security and intelligence services, and stressing the urgent need for those responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice,
3. Decides that MONUC will also have the mandate, in close cooperation with the Congolese authorities, the United Nations country team and donors, to support the strengthening of democratic institutions and the rule of law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, to that end, to:
(c) … cooperate in national and international efforts to bring to justice perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law;
12. Reiterates its call upon the Congolese authorities to put an end to impunity, including by bringing to justice without delay perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, and to take into account when they select candidates for official positions, including key posts in the armed forces, national police and other security services, the candidates’ past actions in terms of respect for international humanitarian law and human rights. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1756, 15 May 2007, preamble and §§ 3(c) and 12, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Noting with strong concern on-going attacks on the civilian population and humanitarian workers and continued and widespread sexual violence, including as outlined in the Report of the Secretary-General and the Chairperson of the African Union Commission on the Hybrid Operation in Darfur and the report of the Secretary-General of 23 February 2007, emphasising the need to bring to justice the perpetrators of such crimes and urging the Government of Sudan to do so, and reiterating in this regard its condemnation of all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Darfur. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1769, 31 July 2007, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Deploring again the persistence of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular those carried out by the FDLR [Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda], ex-FAR [Rwandan Armed Forces]/Interahamwe and the dissident militia of Laurent Nkunda, as well as other militias and armed groups and elements of the FARDC [Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo], the Congolese National Police (PNC) and other security and intelligence services, and stressing the urgent need for those responsible for these crimes to be brought to justice,
Condemning in particular sexual violence perpetrated by militias and armed groups as well as elements of the FARDC, the PNC and other security and intelligence services, stressing the urgent need for the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in cooperation with MONUC and other relevant actors, to end such violence and bring the perpetrators, as well as the senior commanders under whom they serve, to justice, and calling on Member States to assist in this regard and to continue to provide medical, humanitarian and other assistance to victims,
15. Reiterates its call upon the Congolese authorities to put an end to impunity, by bringing to justice without delay perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, with special attention to those responsible for recruitment and use of children as well as for grave violations against women and children, in particular sexual violence, to fully support the human rights mapping exercise initiated in the country by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to establish a vetting mechanism to take into account when they select candidates for official positions, including key posts in the armed forces, national police and other security services, the candidates’ past actions in terms of respect for international humanitarian law and human rights;
16. Recalls MONUC’s mandate to assist in the promotion and protection of human rights, investigate human rights violations with a view to putting an end to impunity, assist in the development and implementation of a transitional justice strategy, and cooperate in national and international efforts to bring to justice perpetrators of grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1794, 21 December 2007, preamble and §§ 15–16, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In April 1994, in a statement by its President on the situation in Rwanda, the UN Security Council required that “the interim Government of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front take effective measures to prevent any attacks on civilians in areas under their control”. It called on “the leadership of both parties to condemn publicly such attacks and to commit themselves to ensuring that persons who instigate or participate in such attacks are prosecuted and punished”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/21, 30 April 1994.
UN Security Council
In October 1994, in a statement by its President on the situation in Rwanda, the UN Security Council welcomed “the speed with which the United Nations and the Government of Rwanda responded to allegations that some RPA [Rwandan Patriotic Army] soldiers might have been responsible for systematic killings” and underlined “the importance it attaches to the thorough and expeditious investigation of these allegations”. The Security Council further reaffirmed its view that “those responsible for serious breaches of international humanitarian law and acts of genocide must be brought to justice”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/59, 14 October 1994.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President in connection with events in Burundi, the UN Security Council stated that it fully supported the efforts of the Burundian authorities “in seeking to ensure that those committing or inciting the commitment of acts of violence are held accountable for their actions”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/82, 22 December 1994.
UN Security Council
In September 1995, in a statement by its President on the situation in Croatia, the UN Security Council demanded that the Government of Croatia “immediately investigate all [reports of human rights violations including the burning of houses, looting of property and killings] and take appropriate measures to put an end to such acts”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/44, 7 September 1995, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In September 1995, in a statement by its President on the situation in Croatia, the UN Security Council demanded that the Government of Croatia “investigate all reports of human rights violations and take appropriate measures to put an end to such acts”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/49, 17 September 1995.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council voiced its deep concern at “continuing reports of massacres, other atrocities and violations of IHL in eastern Zaire” and pointed out that it attached great importance to the “commitment of the leader of the ADFL [Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo/Zaire] to take appropriate action against members of the ADFL who violate the rules of international humanitarian law concerning the treatment of refugees and civilians”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/24, 30 April 1997.
UN Security Council
In 1998, in a statement by its President on the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council recognizes the necessity to investigate further the massacres, other atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law and to prosecute those responsible. It deplores the delay in the administration of justice. The Council calls on the Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to investigate without delay, in their respective countries, the allegations contained in the report of the Investigative Team and to bring to justice any persons found to have been involved in these or other massacres, atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law. The Council takes note of the stated willingness of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to try any of its nationals who are guilty of or were implicated in the alleged massacres … Such action is of great importance in helping to bring an end to impunity and to foster lasting peace and stability in the region. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/20, 13 July 1998, pp. 1–2.
UN Security Council
In 1998, in two statements by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council stated that it supported “the steps of the Secretary-General to launch investigations into alleged mass killings of prisoners of war and civilians in Afghanistan”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/9, 6 April 1998, p. 2; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/22, 14 July 1998, p. 3.
UN Security Council
In 2000, in a statement by its President on the protection of UN personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones, the UN Security Council urged “States to fulfil their responsibility to act promptly and effectively in their domestic legal systems to bring to justice all those responsible for attacks and other acts of violence against such personnel, and to enact effective national legislation as required for that purpose”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2000/4, 9 February 2000.
UN Security Council
In 2003, in a statement by its President on the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council urges the Burundian parties to take serious, meaningful steps to address human rights and accountability issues. In this regard, the Council welcomes the approval by the Burundian Senate on 23 April of legislation on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and legislation establishing a truth and reconciliation commission. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2003/4, 2 May 2003, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2003, in a statement by its President on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns the recent killings, the violence and other human rights violations and atrocities in Bunia, as well as the attacks against the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and internally displaced persons who have sought refuge at the MONUC premises, and reiterates that there will be no impunity for such acts and that the perpetrators will be held accountable. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2003/6, 16 May 2003, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2003, in a statement by its President on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council reiterates its call to all parties to armed conflict to comply fully with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and with the rules and principles of international law, in particular international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, and to implement fully the relevant decisions of the Security Council. The Security Council recalls the obligations of States to respect and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, including the four Geneva conventions, and emphasizes the responsibility of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2003/27, 15 December 2003, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2003, in a statement by its President on the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council condemned “all acts of violence as well as violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and reaffirms its determination to support Burundian efforts to prevent such acts, based on the rule of law, in order to put an end to impunity”.  
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2003/30, 22 December 2003, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly condemns the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed in Côte d’Ivoire, including those that occurred in Abidjan 25–26 March, and expresses its determination to ensure that those responsible for all these violations are identified and that the Ivorian Government brings them to justice. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/17, 25 May 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, the UN Security Council stated:
The Council also expresses its deep concern at the continuing reports of large-scale violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law in Darfur, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, sexual violence, forced displacement and acts of violence, especially those with an ethnic dimension, and demands that those responsible be held accountable. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/18, 25 May 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns the deaths of innocent civilians and human rights abuses in the East of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and calls for such incidents to be fully investigated. Those responsible for atrocities and human rights abuses should be held to account, and the Government of National Unity and Transition should take immediate steps, with support from the international community, to reverse the current climate of impunity. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/21, 22 June 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President regarding the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council takes note with profound concern of the preliminary results of the investigation led by the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire on the massacres that occurred in Korhogo. It reiterates its firm condemnation of all atrocities and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed in Côte d’Ivoire and in particular those that have occurred on 25 and 26 March 2004 in Abidjan. It reiterates its full support to the international commission of inquiry put in place by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in order to establish the facts and circumstances of the perpetration of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law which occurred in Côte d’Ivoire since 19 September 2002, and, as far as possible, to identify their authors. It recalls that all persons responsible for such violations will be brought to justice. It encourages the Ivorian parties to establish without further delay, as they have committed themselves to, the National Commission for Human Rights provided for by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/29, 5 August 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President regarding the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns with the utmost firmness the massacre of refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo which occurred on the territory of Burundi, in Gatumba, on 13 August 2004.
The Security Council requests the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Burundi, in close contact with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to establish the facts and report on them to the Council as quickly as possible.
The Security Council calls upon the authorities of Burundi and of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to cooperate actively so that the perpetrators and those responsible for those crimes be brought to justice without delay.
The Security Council requests the United Nations Operation in Burundi and the United Nations Organization’s Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to offer their assistance to the Burundian and Congolese authorities with a view to facilitating the investigation and to strengthening the security of vulnerable populations. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/30, 15 August 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President entitled “Justice and the Rule of Law: the United Nations Role”, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council emphasizes that ending the climate of impunity is essential in a conflict and post-conflict society’s efforts to come to terms with past abuses, and in preventing future abuses. The Council draws attention to the full range of transitional justice mechanisms that should be considered, including national, international and “mixed” criminal tribunals, truth and reconciliation commissions, and underlines that those mechanisms should concentrate not only on individual responsibility for serious crimes, but also on the need to seek peace, truth and national reconciliation. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/34, 6 October 2004, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on women and peace and security, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council strongly condemns the continued acts of gender-based violence in situations of armed conflict. The Council also condemns all violations of the human rights of women and girls in situations of armed conflict and the use of sexual exploitation, violence and abuse. The Council urges the complete cessation by all parties of such acts with immediate effect. The Council stresses the need to end impunity for such acts as part of a comprehensive approach to seeking peace, justice, truth and national reconciliation. The Council welcomes the efforts of the United Nations system to establish and implement strategies and programmes to prevent and report on gender-based violence, and urges the Secretary-General to further his efforts in this regard. The Council requests the Secretary-General to ensure that human rights monitors and members of commissions of inquiry have the necessary expertise and training in gender-based crimes and in the conduct of investigations, including in a culturally sensitive manner favourable to the needs, dignity and rights of the victims. The Council urges all international and national courts specifically established to prosecute war-related crimes to provide gender expertise, gender training for all staff and gender-sensitive programmes for victims and witness protection. The Council emphasizes the urgent need for programmes that provide support to survivors of gender-based violence. The Council further requests that appropriate attention is given to the issue of gender-based violence in all future reports to the Council. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/40, 28 October 2004, pp. 1–2.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council recalls the obligations of all States to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, including the four Geneva conventions, and emphasizes the responsibility of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/46, 14 December 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council, recalling its resolutions 1265 (1999) and 1296 (2000) as well as statements made by its Presidents on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, reiterates its commitment to address the widespread impact of armed conflict on civilian populations.
The Council reaffirms its strong condemnation of the deliberate targeting of civilians or other protected persons in situations of armed conflict, and calls upon all parties to put an end to such practices. It expresses in particular its deep concern at the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. It calls upon all States to put an end to impunity also in this regard. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/25, 21 June 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on the maintenance of international security, the UN Security Council recalled “that it has repeatedly emphasized the responsibility of States to end impunity and bring to justice those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/30, 12 July 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on the maintenance of international security, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns with the utmost firmness the massacre of some fifty people, most of them women and children, which occurred on 9 July 2005 in Ntulu-Mamba, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Security Council calls upon the Congolese authorities to prosecute and bring to justice expeditiously the perpetrators and those responsible for these crimes, and requests the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) to provide all necessary support. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/31, 13 July 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on women and peace and security, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council condemns sexual and other forms of violence against women, including trafficking in persons, and calls upon all parties to armed conflict to ensure full and effective protection of women and emphasizes the necessity to end impunity of those responsible for gender-based violence. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/52, 27 October 2005, p. 3.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Sudan, the UN Security Council demanded “that those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law be brought to justice without delay”.  
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/67, 21 December 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on strengthening international law, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council emphasizes the responsibility of States to comply with their obligations to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Council reaffirms that ending impunity is essential if a society in conflict or recovering from conflict is to come to terms with past abuses committed against civilians and to prevent future such abuses. The Council intends to continue forcefully to fight impunity with appropriate means and draws attention to the full range of justice and reconciliation mechanisms to be considered, including national, international and “mixed” criminal courts and tribunals and truth and reconciliation commissions. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/28, 22 June 2006, pp. 1–2.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council underscored to the Congolese parties “the importance of preventing impunity for those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that constitute crimes”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/40, 22 September 2006, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on women and peace and security, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council remains deeply concerned by the pervasiveness of all forms of violence against women in armed conflict, including killing, maiming, grave sexual violence, abductions and trafficking in persons. The Council reiterates its utmost condemnation of such practices and calls upon all parties to armed conflict to ensure full and effective protection of women, and emphasizes the necessity to end impunity of those responsible for gender-based violence. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/42, 26 October 2006, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Great Lakes region, the UN Security Council invited UN Member States to “ensure that those responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are brought to justice”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/45, 16 November 2006, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on women and peace and security, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council reaffirms also the need to implement fully international human rights and humanitarian law including the four Geneva Conventions that protect the rights of women and girls during and after conflicts.
The Security Council stresses the need to end impunity for acts of gender-based violence in situations of armed conflict and emphasizes the responsibility of all States to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes including those relating to sexual and other violence against women and girls, and in this regard stresses the need to exclude these crimes, where feasible from amnesty provisions. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/5, 7 March 2007, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Great Lakes region, the UN Security Council reiterated “that those responsible for serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law must be brought to justice”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/6, 22 March 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on women and peace and security, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council is deeply concerned that despite its repeated condemnation of all acts of violence, including killing, maiming, sexual violence, exploitation and abuse in situations of armed conflict, and despite its calls addressed to all parties to armed conflict for the cessation of such acts with immediate effect, and for the adoption of specific measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape, and other forms of sexual abuse, as well as all other forms of violence, such acts remain pervasive, and in some situations have become systematic, and have reached appalling levels of atrocity. The Council stresses the need to end impunity for such acts as part of a comprehensive approach to seeking peace, justice, truth and national reconciliation. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/40, 23 October 2007, p. 3.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1946 on the extradition and punishment of war criminals, the UN General Assembly:
Recommends
that members of the United Nations forthwith take all the necessary measures to cause the arrest of those war criminals who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in [crimes as defined, inter alia, in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 1945], and to cause them to be sent back to the countries to which their abominable deeds were done, in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those countries;
and calls upon
the governments of States which are not members of the United Nations also to take all necessary measures for the apprehension of such criminals in their respective territories with a view to their immediate removal to the countries in which the crimes were committed for the purpose of trial and punishment according to the laws of those countries. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3 (I), 13 February 1946, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1969 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all the States concerned to take the necessary measures for the thorough investigation of war crimes and crimes against humanity … and for the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of all war criminals and persons guilty of crimes against humanity who have not yet been brought to trial or punished. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2583 (XXIV), 15 December 1969, § 1, voting record: 74-5-32-15; see also Res. 2712 (XXV), 15 December 1970, §§ 2 and 5, voting record: 55-4-33-35.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on the question of the punishment of war criminals and of persons who have committed crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly urged States “to take measures to ensure the punishment of all persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including their extradition to those countries where they have committed such crimes”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2840 (XXVI), 18 December 1971, § 1, voting record: 71-0-42-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1973 on principles of international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the UN General Assembly declared that “war crimes and crimes against humanity, wherever they are committed, shall be subject to investigation and the persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed such crimes shall be subject to tracing, arrest, trial and, if found guilty, to punishment”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3074 (XXVIII), 3 December 1973, § 1, voting record: 94-0-29-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994, the UN General Assembly referred to the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict and invited all States
to disseminate widely the revised guidelines for military manuals and instructions on the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict received from the International Committee of the Red Cross and to give due consideration to the possibility of incorporating them into their military manuals and other instructions addressed to their military personnel. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/50, 9 December 1994, § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on rape and abuse of women in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirms that rape in the conduct of armed conflict constitutes a war crime … and calls upon States to take all measures required for the protection of women and children from such acts and to strengthen mechanisms to investigate and punish all those responsible and bring the perpetrators to justice. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/192, 22 December 1995, § 3, adopted without a vote; see also Res. 51/77, 12 December 1996, § 28, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon all States
to take all measures required for the protection of women and children from all acts of gender-based violence, including rape, sexual exploitation and forced pregnancy, and to strengthen mechanisms to investigate and punish all those responsible and bring the perpetrators to justice. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 52/107, 12 December 1997, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on an investigation into sexual exploitation of refugees by aid workers in West Africa, the UN General Assembly condemned “any exploitation of refugees and internally displaced persons, especially sexual exploitation” and called for “those responsible for such deplorable acts to be brought to justice”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 57/306, 15 April 2003, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the prevention of armed conflict, the UN General Assembly stressed “the need to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity as a significant contribution towards the promotion of a culture of prevention”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 57/337, 3 July 2003, Annex, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizes the necessity of investigating allegations of violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, including violations committed against persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities, as well as against women and girls, of facilitating the provision of efficient and effective remedies to the victims and of bringing the perpetrators to justice in accordance with international law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/27 B, 5 December 2003, § 15, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the UN General Assembly urged States to “ensure that crimes against United Nations and associated personnel do not go unpunished and that the perpetrators of such crimes are brought to justice”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/82, 9 December 2003, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the protection of UN personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly urges all States to take stronger actions to ensure that any threat or act of violence committed against humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel on their territory is investigated fully and to ensure that the perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice in accordance with international law and national law, and notes the need for States to end impunity for such acts. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/122, 17 December 2003, § 8, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on special assistance for the economic recovery and reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemns the acts of violence, including the latest massacres in Ituri, systematically perpetrated against civilians, including the massacres, as well as other atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law and human rights, in particular sexual violence against women and girls, stresses the need to bring to justice those responsible, including those at the command level, and urges all parties, including the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to take all necessary steps to prevent further violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular those committed against civilians. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/123, 17 December 2003, § 6, voting record: 169-1-0-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the UN General Assembly:
18. Deplores the deaths, injuries and other forms of violence sustained by staff members of the Office of the High Commissioner, urges States, parties to conflict and all other relevant actors to take all necessary measures to protect activities related to humanitarian assistance, prevent attacks on and kidnapping of national and international humanitarian workers and ensure their safety and security, calls upon States to investigate fully any crime committed against humanitarian personnel and to bring to justice persons responsible for such crimes, and calls upon organizations and aid workers to abide by the national laws and regulations of the countries in which they operate;
19. Condemns any exploitation of refugees, especially their sexual abuse and exploitation, calls for those responsible for such deplorable acts to be brought to justice, welcomes in this regard the conclusion on protection from sexual abuse and exploitation adopted by the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at its fifty-fourth session, and notes with deep concern that inadequate protection and/or inappropriate assistance, particularly concerning the quantity and quality of food and other material assistance, increases the vulnerability of refugees and asylum-seekers to sexual abuse and exploitation. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/149, 22 December 2003, §§ 18–19, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States to end impunity for perpetrators of crimes committed against children, recognizing in this regard the contribution of the establishment of the International Criminal Court as a way to prevent violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular when children are victims of serious crimes, including the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and to bring perpetrators of such crimes to justice, and not to grant amnesties for these crimes. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/157, 22 December 2003, § 8, voting record: 179-1-0-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the UN General Assembly:
… stresses in particular that all allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be promptly and impartially examined by the competent national authority, that those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate acts of torture must be held responsible and severely punished, including the officials in charge of the place of detention where the prohibited act is found to have been committed. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/164, 22 December 2003, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, the UN General Assembly:
Expresses serious concern about the fact that the situation of impunity still exists in Cambodia, recognizes efforts and actions by the Government of Cambodia to prosecute perpetrators of violations, and calls upon the Government, as a matter of critical priority, to increase its efforts to investigate urgently and to prosecute, in accordance with due process of law and international human rights standards, all those who have perpetrated serious crimes. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/191, 22 December 2003, section III, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly:
2. Condemns:
(h) The impunity of those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and points out in this connection that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
4. Urges all parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
(d) To allow free and secure access to all areas so as to permit and support investigations of the presumed serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, with a view to bringing those responsible to justice, and to cooperate fully to that end with national and international human rights protection mechanisms to investigate alleged human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
6. Calls upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to take specific measures:
(f) To put an end to impunity and to ensure that those responsible for human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law are brought to justice in accordance with due process. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/196, 22 December 2003, §§ 2(h), 4(d) and 6(f), voting record: 81-2-91-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the scope of the legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Deeply concerned that perpetrators of attacks against United Nations and associated personnel seemingly operate with impunity,
3. Also urges States to ensure that crimes against United Nations and associated personnel do not go unpunished and that the perpetrators of such crimes are brought to justice. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/47, 2 December 2004, preamble and § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on emergency international assistance for peace, normalcy and reconstruction of war-stricken Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly:
3. Strongly condemns all acts of violence and intimidation directed against humanitarian personnel and United Nations and associated personnel, regrets the loss of life and physical harm, and urges the Government of Afghanistan to make every effort to identify and to bring to justice the perpetrators of attacks;
8. Emphasizes again the necessity of investigating allegations of current and past violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law, including violations committed against persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities, as well as against women and girls, of facilitating the provision of efficient and effective r