Practice Relating to Rule 59. Improper Use of the Distinctive Emblems of the Geneva Conventions

Note: For practice concerning the simulation of protected status by using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions as an act considered perfidious, see Rule 65, Section F.
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 23(f) of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “It is especially prohibited … to make improper use of … the distinctive badges of the [1864] Geneva Convention.” 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 23(f).
Geneva Convention (1906)
The 1906 Geneva Convention provides:
Art. 27. The signatory powers whose legislation may not now be adequate engage to take or recommend to their legislatures such measures as may be necessary to prevent the use, by private persons or by societies other than those upon which this convention confers the right thereto, of the emblem or name of the Red Cross or Geneva Cross, particularly for commercial purposes by means of trade-marks or commercial labels …
Art. 28. In the event of their military penal laws being insufficient, the signatory governments also engage to take, or to recommend to their legislatures, the necessary measures to repress, in time of war, individual acts of robbery and ill treatment of the sick and wounded of the armies, as well as to punish, as usurpations of military insignia, the wrongful use of the flag and brassard of the Red Cross by military persons or private individuals not protected by the present convention. 
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 6 July 1906, Articles 27 and 28.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 23(f) of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “It is especially forbidden … to make improper use of … the distinctive badges of the [1864] Geneva Convention.” 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 23(f).
Geneva Convention (1929)
Article 24 of the 1929 Geneva Convention provides:
The emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” shall not be used either in time of peace or in time of war, except to protect or to indicate the medical formations and establishments and the personnel and material protected by the Convention. 
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 24.
Geneva Convention (1929)
Article 28 of the 1929 Geneva Convention provides:
The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose legislation is not at present adequate for the purpose, shall adopt or propose to their legislatures the measures necessary to prevent at all times:
(a) The use of the emblem or designation “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” by private individuals or associations, firms or companies, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, as well as the use of any sign or designation constituting an imitation, for commercial or any other purposes;
(b) By reason of the compliment paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, the use by private individuals or associations, firms or companies of the arms of the Swiss Confederation or marks constituting an imitation, whether as trademarks or as parts of such marks, for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment. 
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 28.
Geneva Convention I
Article 39 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides:
Under the direction of the competent military authority, the emblem [of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Lion and Sun] shall be displayed on the flags, armlets and on all equipment employed in the Medical Service. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 39.
Geneva Convention I
Article 44 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides:
With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters. The same shall apply to [the red crescent or red lion and sun on white ground] in respect of the countries which use them. The National Red Cross Societies and other societies designated in Article 26 shall have the right to use the distinctive emblem conferring the protection of the Convention only within the framework of the present paragraph.
Furthermore, National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies may, in time of peace, in accordance with their national legislation, make use of the name and emblem of the Red Cross for their other activities which are in conformity with the principles laid down by the International Red Cross Conferences. When those activities are carried out in time of war, the conditions for the use of the emblem shall be such that it cannot be considered as conferring the protection of the Convention; the emblem shall be comparatively small in size and may not be placed on armlets or on the roofs of buildings.
The international Red Cross organizations and their duly authorized personnel shall be permitted to make use, at all times, of the emblem of the red cross on a white ground.
As an exceptional measure, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies, the emblem of the Convention may be employed in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances and to mark the position of aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 44.
Geneva Convention I
Article 53 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides:
The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.
By reason of the tribute paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, and of the confusion which may arise between the arms of Switzerland and the distinctive emblem of the Convention, the use by private individuals, societies or firms, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, or of marks constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trademarks or commercial marks, or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment, shall be prohibited at all times. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 53.
Geneva Convention I
Article 54 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides: “The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.” 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 54.
Geneva Convention II
Article 41, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention II provides: “Under the direction of the competent military authority, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground shall be displayed on the flags, armlets and on all equipment employed in the Medical Service.” 
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 41, para. 1.
Geneva Convention II
Article 44 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II provides:
The distinguishing signs referred to in Article 43 [red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground] can only be used, whether in time of peace or war, for indicating or protecting the ships therein mentioned, except as may be provided in any other international Convention or by agreement between all the Parties to the conflict concerned.  
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 44.
Geneva Convention II
Article 45 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II provides:
The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take the measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of any abuse of the distinctive signs provided for under Article 43 [red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground]. 
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 45.
Geneva Conventions (1949)
According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the following are entitled to use the distinctive emblems:
- medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces (Articles 24 and 40 of the Geneva Convention I);
- the staff of National Red Cross Societies and that of other voluntary aid societies, duly recognized and authorized by their governments, who may be employed on the same duties as the personnel named in Article 24 (Articles 26, 40 and 44 of the Geneva Convention I);
- the medical personnel and units of a recognized Society of a neutral country with the previous consent of its own government and the authorization of the party to the conflict concerned (Articles 27 and 40 of the Geneva Convention I);
- members of the armed forces specially trained for employment, should the need arise, as hospital orderlies, nurses or auxiliary stretcher-bearers, in the search for or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick, but only while carrying out medical duties (Articles 25 and 41 of the Geneva Convention I);
- such medical units and establishments as are entitled to be respected under the Geneva Convention I, and only with the consent of the military authorities (Article 42 of the Geneva Convention I);
- the international Red Cross organizations and their duly authorized personnel, at all times (Article 44 of the Geneva Convention I);
- vehicles used as ambulances and aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick, as an exceptional measure in time of peace, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies (Article 44 of the Geneva Convention I);
- the religious, medical and hospital personnel of hospital ships and their crews (Articles 36 and 42 of the Geneva Convention II);
- the religious, medical and hospital personnel assigned to the medical or spiritual care of the persons designated in Articles 12 and 13 (wounded, sick and shipwrecked) (Articles 37 and 42 of the Geneva Convention II);
- military hospital ships, that is to say, ships built or equipped by the powers specially and solely with a view to assisting the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to treating them and to transporting them (Articles 22 and 43 of the Geneva Convention II);
- hospital ships utilized by National Red Cross Societies, by officially recognized relief societies or by private persons (Articles 24 and 43 of the Geneva Convention II);
- hospital ships utilized by National Red Cross Societies, officially recognized relief societies, or private persons of neutral countries (Articles 25 and 43 of the Geneva Convention II);
- small craft employed by the State or by the officially recognized lifeboat institutions for coastal rescue operations (Articles 27 and 43 of the Geneva Convention II);
- lifeboats of hospital ships, coastal lifeboats and all small craft used by the medical service (Article 43 of the Geneva Convention II);
- civilian hospitals, if so authorized by the State (Article 18 of the Geneva Convention IV);
- persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, as well as other personnel who are engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, while they are employed on such duties (Article 20 of the 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, Articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 40, 41, 42 and 44; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Articles 22, 24, 25, 27, 36, 37, 42, 43; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Articles 18 and 20.
Additional Protocol I
Article 18(8) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The provisions of the Conventions and of this Protocol relating to the supervision of the use of the distinctive emblem and to the prevention and repression of any misuse thereof shall be applicable to distinctive signals. 
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, Article 18(8). Article 18 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 70.
These distinctive signals are defined in Annex I of the Protocol for the identification of medical units and transports. 
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, Annex I.
Additional Protocol I
Article 38(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun.” 
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, Article 38(1). Article 38 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Additional Protocol I
According to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the following are entitled to use the distinctive emblems:
- medical personnel, meaning those persons assigned (permanently or temporarily), by a party to the conflict, exclusively to the medical purposes (the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment – including first-aid treatment – of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, or for the prevention of disease) or to the administration of medical units or to the operation or administration of medical transports. The terms include:
(a) medical personnel of a party to the conflict, whether military or civilian, including those described in Geneva Convention I and II, and those assigned to civil defence organizations;
(b) medical personnel of National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies and other national voluntary aid societies duly recognized and authorized by a party to the conflict;
(c) medical personnel or medical units or medical transports described in Article 9(2) (permanent medical units and transports, other than hospital ships, and their personnel made available to a party to the conflict for humanitarian purposes: (a) by a neutral or other State which is not party to that conflict; (b) by a recognized and authorized aid society of such a State; (c) by an impartial international humanitarian organization) (Article 8);
- religious personnel, meaning military or civilian persons, such as chaplains, who are exclusively engaged in the work of their ministry and attached:
(a) to the armed forces of a party to the conflict;
(b) to medical units or medical transports of a party to the conflict;
(c) to medical units or medical transports described in Article 9(2); or
(d) to civil defence organizations of a party to the conflict (Article 8);
- medical units (fixed or mobile, permanent or temporary), meaning establishments and other units, whether military or civilian, organized for medical purposes, namely the search for, collection, transportation, diagnosis or treatment – including first-aid treatment – of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, or for the prevention of disease. The term includes, for example, hospitals and other similar units, blood transfusion centres, preventive medicine centres and institutes, medical depots and the medical and pharmaceutical stores of such units (Article 8);
- medical transports, meaning any means of transportation, whether military or civilian, permanent or temporary, assigned exclusively to medical transportation and under the control of a competent authority of a party to the conflict (Article 8);
- civilian medical personnel and civilian religious personnel in occupied territory and in areas where fighting is taking place or is likely to take place (Article 18(3));
- hospital ships and coastal rescue craft carrying civilian wounded, sick and shipwrecked who do not belong to one of the categories mentioned in Article 13 Geneva Convention II (Articles 18(4) and 22);
- medical ships and craft other than those referred to in Article 22 Additional Protocol I and Article 38 Geneva Convention II (Article 23(1)). 
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 8, 18(3) and (4), 22 and 23(1).
Additional Protocol II
Article 12 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
Under the direction of the competent authority concerned, the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground shall be displayed by medical and religious personnel and medical units, and on medical transports. It shall be respected in all circumstances. It shall not be used improperly. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 12. Article 12 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 114.
ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[m]aking improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
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 8(2)(b)(vii).
Lieber Code
Article 117 of the 1863 Lieber Code considers it “an act of bad faith, of infamy or fiendishness to deceive the enemy by flags of protection”. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 117.
Brussels Declaration
Article 13(f) of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides that “[m]aking improper use of … the distinctive badges of the [1864] Geneva Convention” is especially prohibited. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 13(f).
Oxford Manual
Article 8(d) of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden … to make improper use … of the protective signs prescribed by the [1864] Geneva Convention.” 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 8(d).
Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles
In the 1991 Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, the Presidents of the six republics of the former Yugoslavia called for respect for the red cross emblem, stating: “It may be used only to designate sanitary troops or buildings as well as persons and vehicles belonging to this service.” 
Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, signed by the Presidents of the Six Republics of the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, 5 November 1991.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 38(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. Paragraph 10 provides: “The parties shall repress any misuse of the [red cross] emblem.” 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, §§ 6 and 10.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 38(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
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, § 2.5.
In paragraph 3, the parties undertook “to use the [red cross] emblem only to identify medical units and personnel and to comply with the other rules of international humanitarian law relating to the use of the Red Cross emblem and shall repress any misuse of the emblem”. 
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, § 3.
Agreement No. 3 between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the ICRC Plan of Action
Paragraph I(4) of the 1992 Agreement No. 3 between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the ICRC Plan of Action states that “misuse of the red cross emblem” is one of “the main obstacles to humanitarian activities”. 
Agreement No. 3 between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representative of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community) on the ICRC Plan of Action, Geneva, 6 June 1992, § I(4).
San Remo Manual
Paragraph 110(f) of the 1994 San Remo Manual provides: “Warships and auxiliary vessels are prohibited … at all times from actively simulating the status of vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the red cross or red crescent.” 
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 110(f).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 9.7 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides:
[The Red Cross and Red Crescent] emblems may not be employed except to indicate or to protect medical units and medical establishments, personnel and material. Any misuse of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems is prohibited. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, § 9.7.
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(vii), “[m]aking improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(vii).
Argentina
Under Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969), the improper use of the distinctive emblems is an act violating the principle of good faith. The use is considered as “improper” only in combat operations. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 1.017.
The manual also states that the distinctive emblems “shall not be used … whether in time of peace or in time of war, for other purposes than indicating or protecting medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the [1949 Geneva Conventions]”. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 3. 018(7).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides: “It is prohibited … to make improper use of the sign of the Red Cross.” 
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, § 1.06(1).
The manual further states:
The distinctive sign of [the 1949 Geneva Convention I] and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] can only be used for medical units and for medical and religious personnel whose protection is provided for in the Convention and Protocol, with the consent of the competent authority. 
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, § 6.09.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides:
The following examples constitute grave breaches or serious war crimes likely to warrant institution of criminal proceedings: … misusing or abusing the Red Cross symbol … for the purpose of gaining protection to which the user would otherwise not be entitled. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1305(l).
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “It is prohibited to improperly use the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 704.
The manual also states: “The following examples constitute grave breaches or serious war crimes likely to warrant institution of criminal proceedings: … misusing or abusing the Red Cross symbol … for the purpose of gaining protection to which the user would otherwise not be entitled.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1315(l).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “It is prohibited to improperly use the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.5.
The manual also states:
Provisions of the Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognised as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:
• to make improper use of … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Convention. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.29.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) provides:
The abuse of the emblem of the Red Cross is strictly prohibited. One may not, therefore, display the emblem of the Red Cross on vehicles that transport troops, ammunition [or] foodstuffs to the frontline … One may not use the emblem of the Red Cross to protect observation posts or military depots. 
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. 33.
Belgium
Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Officers (1994) stipulates:
It is prohibited to abuse the protective signs provided for by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. Example: camouflaging arms and ammunition in a vehicle or a building displaying the protective sign of the red cross. 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Manuel d’Instruction pour Officiers, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 1994, Part I, Title II, p. 33.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “[i]t is prohibited to improperly use … the distinctive signs and signals of the medical service”. 
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. 94.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that the improper use of the distinctive signs and signals is an unlawful deception. 
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. 30, § 131.2 and p. 89, § 222.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) lists “improperly using distinctive signs and signals” as one of several “prohibited deceptions”. 
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. 103, § 371; see also p. 147, § 431 and p. 222. § 222.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 32: Prohibitions
It is prohibited to soldiers in combat:
to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 32.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 10.
According to the manual, “improperly using … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 20(f).
The manual also provides that, in a non-international armed conflict, “the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent … must not be used improperly”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-4, § 33.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides: “False and improper use of the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem is prohibited.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 10, § 10.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare: “It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 604.
In its chapter on naval warfare, the manual states: “Warships and auxiliary vessels are also prohibited from actively simulating the status of: … f. vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 856.5.f.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “improperly using … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions” constitutes a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.2.f.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states that “the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent … is to be respected at all times, and must not be used improperly”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1719.1.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) provides:
False and improper use of the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem is prohibited. The use of the Red Cross to shield the movement of troops or ammunitions is also prohibited. Perfidy is a war crime. Committing a hostile act under the cover of the protection provided by the distinctive emblem would constitute perfidy. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 10, § 10.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states: “During combat, it is also prohibited for servicemen to … make improper use of … the distinctive emblems of international conventions”. 
Central African Republic, Décret 09.411 portant règlement de discipline générale dans les Armées, Ministre de la Défense Nationale, des Anciens Combattants, des Victimes de Guerre, du Désarmement et de la Restructuration de l’Armée, 10 December 2009, Article 12(11).
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that making improper use of the “distinctive protective signs” and of the “signs and emblems of humanitarian organizations” is prohibited and that to do so is a war crime. 
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. 78.
Colombia
Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999) states that it is a punishable offence “to use improperly insignia, flags and emblems of the Red Cross”. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 31.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions”. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32(2).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
It is prohibited:
a. to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent, red crystal or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Geneva Conventions or the Additional Protocols. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 49.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “It is prohibited for combatants to … make improper use of … the distinctive emblems provided for in international conventions.” 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 30(3).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states that the 1949 Geneva Conventions refer to the emblem of the Red Cross and of the Red Crescent and that: “IHL stipulates … that each state party to the Geneva Conventions is obliged to take measures to prevent or repress, in times of war and peace, the abuse of the emblem.” 
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. 15; see also p. 16.
The manual also states:
Abuse of the emblem
Any usage which is not expressly authorized by IHL constitutes an abuse of the emblem. One distinguishes between three kinds of abuse [two of which are]:
- imitation, that is the utilization of a sign risking to create, by virtue of its form and/or colour, confusion with the emblem;
- usurpation, that is the utilization of the emblem by entities or persons that do not have the right [to do so] (pharmacists, private physicians, non-governmental organizations); there is also usurpation when persons who are normally authorized do not utilize the emblem in conformity with the rules of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and their [1977 Additional] Protocols. 
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. 16.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) states:
It is a serious breach of the laws of war when soldiers use these signs [red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun, and red star of David] to protect or hide military activities. Do not mark your position or yourself with a medical service emblem unless you have been designated to perform only medical duties. Your life may depend on the proper use of the Red Cross symbol. 
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. 5.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989), in a chapter entitled “Misuse of protective signs, signals and symbols”, considers it illegal to use transports marked with the red cross or red crescent to carry armed combatants, weapons or ammunition with which to attack or elude enemy forces. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 12.2.
The manual specifies: “Protective signs and symbols may be used only to identify personnel, objects, and activities entitled to the protected status which they designate. Any other use is forbidden by international law.” 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11.10.5.
The manual further provides: “The following acts constitute war crimes: … misuse, abuse … of the Red Cross emblem, and of similar protective emblems and signs.” 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.5(11).
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, states that it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive signs provided for in international conventions”. 
France, Disciplinary Regulations as amended (1975), Article 9 bis (2).
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “It is prohibited … to use improperly the symbol of medical services.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 47.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “It is prohibited to make improper use … of special internationally acknowledged protective emblems, e.g. the red cross or the red crescent.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 473; see also § 1019 (naval warfare).
The manual also states that the distinctive emblem “shall only be used for the intended purposes”. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 638.
Furthermore, the manual states:
According to § 125 of the Administrative Offences Act … the misuse of the emblem of the Red Cross or of the heraldic emblem of Switzerland constitutes an administrative offence which is liable to a fine …
The abuse of distinctive emblems and names which, according to the rules of international law, are equal in status to the Red Cross may also be prosecuted. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, §§ 1211 and 1212.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
The distinctive emblem for medical personnel as well as for medical establishments is the red cross on a white ground. Instead of the red cross, the red crescent is also recognized. From January 2007, also the red crystal is internationally recognized.
Improper use of the distinctive emblems is expressly prohibited. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 5.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Military Manual (1982) states: “It is prohibited to use the Red Cross emblem improperly.” 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law, Legal Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, 1982, § 104.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “It is forbidden to harm those wearing the Red Cross symbol or to make false use of this insignia.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The manual further states: “The deceitful use of the insignia of a medical team (a red cross, crescent or star of David) is also prohibited.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 36.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive signs of the Red Cross and Red Crescent [or] of other authorized relief societies”. 
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, § 9(2).
The manual also states that grave breaches of international conventions and protocols, including “the improper … use of international protective signs”, constitute war crimes. 
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, § 85.
Japan
Japan’s Self-Defence Force Notification (1965) provides that the commander of a unit should prevent the use of the red cross emblem by persons not entitled to use it. 
Japan, Notification on the Treatment of an Emblem of the Red Cross and ID Cards for Medical Staff, Land Self-Defence Force Notification No. 92-11, 1 October 1965, Article 11.
Lebanon
Lebanon’s Army Regulations (1971) prohibits the unlawful use of the distinctive signs provided for in international agreements. 
Lebanon, Règlement Général de l’Armée, No. 1/400, Ministère de la Défense, Commandement de l’Armée, 14 January 1971, § 17.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) prohibits the abuse of distinctive signs. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-O, § 14.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions”. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention I, states: “The necessary measures must be taken to prevent and repress any misuse of these distinctive signs [i.e. the red cross or red crescent]. Deliberate misuse of these signs is a grave breach of the Convention.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 104.
In a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention II, the manual states: “The High Contracting Parties must take the measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of any abuse of these distinctive signs [i.e. the red cross or red crescent]”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 135.
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009) states: “Do not use the emblems of the medical services to shield combatants.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(j).
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(2).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “It is forbidden to make improper use of the recognized emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-3.
The manual adds that “the misuse of the emblem of the Red Cross (the Red Crescent)” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-5.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states that it is prohibited “to misuse … the red cross emblem”. 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, pp. 7-36 and 7-40.
The manual adds: “Misuse of the red cross is a war crime.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-41.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “It is forbidden to misuse the recognized emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0416; see also § 0413.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
1041. It is prohibited to misuse recognized emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and other emblems and signs named in the conventions of the law of war [1949 Geneva Conventions] …
1059. The red cross or red crescent emblem must be worn visibly by medical and religious personnel. It must be visibly displayed on medical units and means of transport. The emblem must be respected in all circumstances, and may not be misused. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 1041 and 1059.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Improper use of protective symbols … is prohibited.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 502(7).
The red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun and red shield of David are regarded as “protective symbols”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, Annex B, § B31.
The manual further states that “improperly using … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions” is a war crime. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1704(2)(f).
In the case of naval warfare, the manual states: “Flags or markings … of the Red Cross or Red Crescent may not be used as part of a ruse of war.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 713(3).
The manual further provides that, in a non-international armed conflict, “the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent … must not be used improperly”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1818(1).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states that the “misuse of the Red Cross or any equivalent emblem” is a war crime. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to make improper use of the … distinctive signs and signals of the medical service.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.e.(8).(a).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to make improper use of the … distinctive signs and signals of the medical service.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(e)(8)(a), p. 239.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Military Regulation 187 (1991) considers the illegal use of the red cross emblem as a war crime. 
Republic of Korea, Military Regulation 187, 1 January 1991, Article 4.2.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Military Law Manual (1996) prohibits the improper use of the red cross emblem. 
Republic of Korea, Military Law Manual, 1996, p. 88.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that it is a prohibited method of warfare “to use improperly distinctive emblems”. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(c).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The prohibited methods of warfare include … making improper use of the … international distinctive emblem of the Red Cross (Red Crescent).” 
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, § 7.
The Regulations further states: “When organizing and conducting cover and concealment of military objectives it is prohibited to make use of … international distinctive emblems, signs and signals.” 
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, § 137.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations provides:
[T]he distinctive emblem (a red cross on a white ground) shall be carried and displayed in clearly visible places by medical and religious personnel, medical units and medical transports. It shall be respected in all circumstances, it shall not be used improperly. 
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, § 83.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive insignia recognized by international conventions”. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(2).
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) states:
Improper use of the emblem
The emblems are misused when used by:
a. unauthorized persons (e.g. commercial firms, non-governmental organizations etc.)
b. armed combatants on their equipments e.g. ambulances or helicopters to transport armed combatants, ammunition or to mark ammunition dumps, position[ed] to deceive their enemies.
Note that these actions are considered perfidy, a war crime that is punishable. If witnessed, it should be reported to your superior. 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 49.
[emphasis in original]
Spain
Spain’s Field Regulations (1882) provides that it is “indecent and repulsive” to protect or shield troops or military equipment or materials under a red cross emblem. 
Spain, El Reglamento para el Servicio de Campaña, 4 January 1882, Article 864.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that it is prohibited “to make improper use of the emblem of the Red Cross or of the protective signs of medical units or personnel”. 
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, § 7.3.c; see also § 10.8.e.(1).
The manual states that use of the protection provided for by the law of war is an unlawful method of deception. It gives the example of using an ambulance to transport ammunition. 
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, § 2.3.b.(3).
The manual further states that the distinctive sign of the red cross or equivalent and the distinctive signs and signals of the medical service may be used only for their intended purpose. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 3.3.b.(2).
The manual also provides that it is an unlawful deception “to use improperly, i.e., to indicate persons and objects not protected, the distinctive signs and signals of the medical service”. 
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, § 5.3.c.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that use of the protection provided for by the law of war to mislead an adversary into thinking that certain persons or objects cannot be attacked because they are protected is an unlawful method of deception. It gives the example of using an ambulance to transport ammunition. 
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, § 2.3.b.(3).
The manual further states:
It is prohibited to make improper use of the following distinctive signs and signals for any purpose other than the intended one:
(a) the distinctive signs and signals of the medical service;
(f) the distinctive sign of the red cross and equivalent signs. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 3.3.b.(2).(a) and (f); see also §§ 5.3.c and 7.3.c.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the “prohibition of improper use of recognized emblems”, as contained in Article 38 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, is part of customary international law. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 2.2.3, p. 19.
The manual also states:
In land combat it is not unusual for one of the parties to attempt to win a tactical advantage by concealing the character of his own forces prior to attack, in order to mislead or surprise the adversary. The distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or similar organization … may not, however, be used for such purposes. In IV Hague Convention it is forbidden to use these emblems improperly. The expression improperly is not defined but follows indirectly from the Geneva Convention articles (GC I Art. 44, GC II Art. 41) relative to permitted use. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.1, p. 30.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states:
The distinctive sign (Red Cross, Red Crescent) shall serve, under the control of the military authority, to indicate medical establishments, units, personnel, vehicles and material. They shall not be used for other purposes. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 93.
The manual also states that the “abuse of the emblem or protection of the Red Cross” is a war crime. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 200(2)(b).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states:
Rule 8
I remain fair:
- I shall use the distinctive emblems … in accordance with the rules (cf. Rule 10). These also protect my comrades and me;
Rule 10
I am familiar with the international protective signs and their meaning. 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rules 8 and 10.
The Aide-Memoire further states with regard to the protective signs of the red cross and red crescent:
Correct behaviour
- The distinctive signs may only be used by persons entitled and only for their intended purpose.
Prohibited is/are …
- Any improper use of the distinctive signs, e.g. to cover military actions. 
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
13.1 Behaviour with regard to the wounded, sick and shipwrecked and medical and religious personnel
180 Anyone misusing the distinctive emblem will be punished and handed over to the competent military investigation authorities. In such cases, all efforts must be made to ensure the care of the patients.
15.2 Prohibited methods of warfare
223 Misuse of a distinctive sign and the feigning of protected status are prohibited in any place and at any time. Examples: transporting ammunition in a medical vehicle …
17 Sanctions for violations of the international law of armed conflict
237 The following in particular are criminal offences: improper use of international distinctive signs[.] 
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, §§ 180, 223 and 237. The German language version of the first sentence of § 180 notes: “… will be arrested [“verhaftet”] and handed over to the competent military investigation authorities”.
The Regulation also states that, in application of the principle of distinction, “[s]urveillance posts on the roof of a hospital” can be shot at, explaining: “After prior warning has been disregarded: perfidy, misuse of the distinctive emblem”. 
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, § 172.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “The following methods of warfare shall be prohibited: … misuse of the protective emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.3.2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides:
Use of the emblem of a red cross (red crescent, red lion and sun) on a white ground is authorised in order to indicate military hospitals and other military medical establishments as well as, subject to the authorisation of the Government, civilian hospitals and hospital trains.
The emblem must not be used for other purposes. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 302; see also § 377.
The manual further states:
Improper use of the Red Cross emblem is forbidden. The flag with the distinctive emblem must not be used to cover vehicles used for the transport of ammunition and non-medical stores. A hospital train must not be used to facilitate the escape of combatants. It is forbidden to fire from a tent, building or vehicle flying the flag with the distinctive emblem. A hospital or other building protected by the flying of the flag with the distinctive emblem … must not be used as an observation post or military office or store. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 317.
The manual also states: “In addition to the ‘grave breaches’ of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions, … the following are examples of punishable violations of the laws of war, or war crimes: … misuse of the Red Cross or equivalent emblems.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(e).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “It is forbidden … to make improper use in combat of … the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblems.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 12, § 2d.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
It is prohibited to … make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the [1949] Geneva Conventions or by [the 1977] Additional Protocol I. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.10.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual provides: “It is prohibited to make improper use of the … the red cross or red crescent emblems”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.13.
In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual states:
The Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognized as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:
f. to make improper use of … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Convention. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.27.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) incorporates the content of Article 44 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I. 
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, § 244.
The manual provides: “It is especially forbidden … to make improper use of … the distinctive badges of the [1864] Geneva Convention.” 
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, § 52.
The manual adds:
The use of the emblem of the Red Cross and other equivalent insignia must be limited to the indication or protection of medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by [the 1949 Geneva Convention I] and other similar conventions. The following are examples of the improper use of the emblem: using a hospital or other building accorded such protection as an observation post or military office or depot; firing from a building or tent displaying the emblem of the Red Cross; using a hospital train or airplane to facilitate the escape of combatants; displaying the emblem on vehicles containing ammunition or other nonmedical stores; and in general using it for cloaking acts of hostility. 
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, § 55.
The manual also states: “In addition to ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (‘war crimes’): misuse of the Red Cross emblem.” 
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, § 504(f).
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) incorporates the content of Article 23(f) of the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 8-2.
The Pamphlet also provides: “It is forbidden to make use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross (red crescent, red lion and sun) … other than as provided for in international agreements establishing these emblems.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 8-3(c); see also §§ 8–6(b) and 12-2(d).
The Pamphlet adds:
The following are examples of improper use of the medical emblems: (i) using a hospital or other building marked with a red cross or equivalent insignia as an observation post, military office or depot; (ii) using distinctive signs, emblems or signals for cloaking acts of hostilities, such as firing from a building or other protected installation or means of medical transport; (iii) using protected means of medical transport, such as hospitals, trains or airplanes, to facilitate the escape of able-bodied combatants; (iv) displaying protective emblems on vehicles, trains, ships, airplanes, or other modes of transportation or other buildings containing ammunition or other military non-medical supplies. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 8-6(b).
The Pamphlet further states:
In addition to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of situations involving individual criminal responsibility: … wilful misuse of the Red Cross or a similar protective emblem. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 15-3(c)(2).
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) states:
It is a serious breach of the laws of war when soldiers use these signs [red cross, red crescent and red shield of David] to protect or hide military activities. Do not mark your position or yourself with a medical service emblem unless you have been designated to perform only medical duties. Your life may depend on the proper use of the Red Cross symbol. 
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. 7.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995), in a chapter entitled “Misuse of protective signs, signals and symbols”, states that it is illegal to use transports marked with the red cross or red crescent to carry armed combatants, weapons or ammunition with which to attack or elude enemy forces. 
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), § 12.2.
The Handbook further states: “Protective signs and symbols may be used only to identify personnel, objects, and activities entitled to the protected status which they designate. Any other use is forbidden by international law.” 
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), § 11.9.6.
The Handbook also states: “The following acts are representative war crimes: … misuse, abuse … [of] the Red Cross device, and similar protective emblems.” 
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(11).
United States of America
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:
IMPROPERLY USING A DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally uses a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes in a manner prohibited by the law of war shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) The accused used a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes;
(2) The accused used the distinctive emblem in a manner prohibited by the law of war;
(3) The accused knew or should have known of the prohibited nature of such use; and
(4) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with armed conflict.
c. Comment.
(1) “Combatant purposes,” means purposes directly related to hostilities and does not include medical, religious, or similar activities.
(2) The use of the emblem of the Red Cross and other equivalent insignia must be limited to the indication or protection of medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces of the Field and other similar conventions. The following are examples of the improper use of the emblem: using a hospital or other building accorded such protection as an observation post or military office or depot; firing from a building or tent displaying the emblem of the Red Cross; using a hospital train or airplane to facilitate the escape of combatants; displaying the emblem on vehicles containing ammunition or other non-medical stores; and in general using it for cloaking acts of hostility.
d. Maximum punishment. Confinement for 20 years. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(19), pp. IV-14 and IV-15.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Protective signs and symbols may be used only to identify personnel, objects, and activities entitled to the protected status that they designate. Any other use is forbidden by international law.” 
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, § 8.5.1.6.
The Handbook further states that “misuse [and] abuse … [of] the Red Cross device, and similar protective emblems” are examples of acts that could be considered war crimes. 
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 for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:
IMPROPERLY USING A DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM.
a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally uses a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes in a manner prohibited by the law of war shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”
b. Elements.
(1) The accused used a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes;
(2) The accused used the distinctive emblem in a manner prohibited by the law of war;
(3) The accused knew or should have known of the prohibited nature of such use; and
(4) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with hostilities.
c. Comment.
(1) “Combatant purposes,” means purposes directly related to hostilities and does not include medical, religious, or similar activities.
(2) The use of the emblem of the Red Cross and other equivalent insignia must be limited to the indication or protection of medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces of the Field [1949 Geneva Convention I] and other similar conventions. The following are examples of the improper use of the emblem: using a hospital or other building accorded such protection as an observation post or military office or depot; firing from a building or tent displaying the emblem of the Red Cross; using a hospital train or airplane to facilitate the escape of combatants; displaying the emblem on vehicles containing ammunition or other non-medical stores; and in general using it for cloaking acts of hostility.
d. Maximum punishment. Confinement for 20 years. 
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 5(19), pp. IV-15 and IV-16.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) provides that “it is forbidden to use, during combat, in order to mislead the enemy, … internationally recognized signs”, including the red cross emblem. 
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, § 105(3).
The manual adds that “its misuse is a criminal act”. 
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, § 191.
Albania
Albania’s Emblem Law (1994) punishes “the use for any purpose of the Red Cross emblem and name by physical or legal persons in violation of this Law”. This also applies to the red crescent emblem and name. 
Albania, Emblem Law, 1994, Articles 7 and 9.
Algeria
Algeria’s Code of Military Justice (1971) punishes:
any individual, whether military or not, who, in time of war, in an area of operations … in violation of the laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by international conventions for the respect of persons, objects and places protected by these conventions. 
Algeria, Code of Military Justice, 1971, Article 299.
Antigua and Barbuda
The Red Cross Society Act of Antigua and Barbuda (1983) states:
It shall not be lawful for any person other than those authorised under the provisions of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions to use for any purpose whatever the emblem of the red cross on white ground, or any colourable imitation thereof, or the words ‘Red Cross’ or the arms of the Swiss Confederation. 
Antigua and Barbuda, Red Cross Society Act, 1983, Section 8(2).
Argentina
Argentina’s Emblem Law (1893) punishes “(1) Any person who, without proper authorization, wears the armlet of the Red Cross. (2) Any person who improperly uses the name of the Argentine Red Cross Society or uses its emblems or insignia for any unlawful purpose.” 
Argentina, Emblem Law, 1893, Article 1.
Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “the use during military actions of the emblems and distinctive signs of the red cross or red crescent … in breach of international treaties and international law” constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 397.
Armenia
Armenia’s Emblem Law (2002) states:
On the territory of the Republic of Armenia, the following are prohibited for physical and legal persons:
–the use of the emblem, as a protective or indicative device, as well as a distinctive signal which would be contrary to the present law, to the [1949 Geneva] conventions, to [the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1977 Additional Protocol II] …
–the use of the names [Red Cross/Red Crescent] in the social name of legal persons, trademarks, as well as for any purpose in contradiction with the principles of the international movement of the Red Cross and Red Crescent;
–the representation of any sign, including a white cross on a red ground, that can create confusion, by assimilation with the protective emblem. 
Armenia, Emblem Law, 2002, Article 19.
Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) considers “any war crime within the meaning of the instrument of appointment of the Board of Inquiry [set up to investigate war crimes committed by enemy subjects]” as a war crime, including breach of rules relating to the red cross. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 3.
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides that “subject to this section, a person shall not, without the consent in writing of the Minister or of a person authorized in writing by the Minister to give consents under this section, use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as a design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 15(1)(a)-(e).
The war crime provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2009, states that “subject to this section, a person shall not, without the consent in writing of the Minister or of a person authorized in writing by the Minister to give consents under this section, use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun on a white ground, “the emblem of a red frame in the shape of a square on edge on a white ground, or the designation ‘Red Crystal’”, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Lion and Sun”, and “Red Crystal” as well as a design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations “as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems”. 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2009, § 15(1)(a)–(e).
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.44 War crimeimproper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator uses an emblem; and
(b) the emblem is one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator uses the emblem for combatant purposes to invite the confidence of an adversary in order to lead him or her to believe that the perpetrator is entitled to protection, or that the adversary is obliged to accord protection to the perpetrator, with intent to betray that confidence; and
(d) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the illegal nature of such use; and
(e) the perpetrator’s conduct results in death or serious personal injury; and
(f) the conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b)
(3) In this section:
emblem means any emblem, identity card, sign, signal, insignia or uniform. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.44, p. 330.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions” in international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.44.
Austria
Austria’s Red Cross Protection Law (1962) provides:
It is prohibited to use:
a) the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”,
b) the emblem of the red crescent on a white ground, the emblem of the red lion and sun on a white ground, the words “Red Crescent” or “Red Lion and Sun” or
c) emblems and designations which are an imitation of the emblem of the red cross on a white ground or of the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”
in violation of the provisions of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Austria, Red Cross Protection Law, 1962, § 4.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the misuse of the distinctive signs of the red cross or the red crescent in the territory of military operations by persons not entitled to use them” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 119(1).
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Emblem Law (2001) provides:
In the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan, legal and physical persons are prohibited to use in contradiction to the present Law, the Geneva Conventions and Protocols I and II:
a) the red cross and red crescent emblems as a protective or distinctive sign,
b) distinctive signals,
c) the red cross and red crescent emblems and their designations in the names of legal persons, in trademarks,
d) the red cross and red crescent emblems and their designations for the purposes incompatible with the principles of the International Movement of the Red Cross and Red Crescent;
e) any similar signs which can be taken for the red cross and red crescent emblems used as a protective sign. 
Azerbaijan, Emblem Law, 2001, § 14.
Bahamas
The Red Cross Society Act (1975) of the Bahamas provides that “no person other than the Society or a person so authorized under the [1949 Geneva] Conventions shall, without the authority of the Council [of the Society], use for any purpose whatever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, as well as the designations “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”. 
Bahamas, Red Cross Society Act, 1975, Section 8.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).
Barbados
The Geneva Conventions Act (1980) of Barbados provides that “no person shall, without the authority of the Defence Board, use” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, as well as the designations “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”. 
Barbados, Geneva Conventions Act, 1980, Section 9(1).
Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that it is a war crime to “use intentionally, during hostilities, in violation of international treaties, the emblems of the Red Cross [or] Red Crescent”. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 138.
Belarus
Belarus’s Law on the Emblem (2000) provides:
In the territory of the Republic of Belarus legal and physical persons are prohibited to use:
–the emblem [red cross/red crescent] as a protective or distinctive sign as well as distinctive signals in contradiction to the present Law, the [1949 Geneva] Conventions, [the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1977 Additional Protocol II] and Regulations on the Use of the Emblem;
–the designations in the names of legal persons, in trademarks (service marks) as well as for purposes incompatible with the principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement;
–representations of any signs, including that of the white cross on a red ground, that can be mistakenly identified with the emblem used as a protective sign. 
Belarus, Law on the Emblem, 2000, Article 18.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law on the Protection of the Emblem (1956) punishes “without prejudice to other penal provisions, anyone who, in violation of international conventions that regulate their use, uses the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent”, or “Red Lion and Sun”, or their corresponding signs and emblems”. 
Belgium, Law on the Protection of the Emblem, 1956, Article 1.
Belize
Belize’s Red Cross Society Act (1983) states:
It shall not be lawful for any persons other than those authorized under the provisions of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions to use for any purpose whatever the emblem of the Red Cross on white ground, or any colourable imitation thereof, or the words “Red Cross” or the arms of the Swiss Confederation. 
Belize, Red Cross Society Act, 1983, Section 8.
Bolivia
Bolivia’s Emblem Law (2002) punishes any “person who, wilfully and without being entitled to do so, has made use of the Emblem of the Red Cross, of the Red Crescent, of a distinctive signal or of any other sign or signal which is an imitation thereof or which can create confusion”. 
Bolivia, Emblem Law, 2002, Article 11.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Emblem Decree (1992) punishes the wearing or use of the red cross emblem in wartime without being entitled to do so. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Emblem Decree, 1992, Article 16.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), “whoever misuses or carries without authorization … the emblem or flag of the Red Cross, or symbols corresponding to them” commits a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 166(1).
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 445(1).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:
(1) Whoever misuses or carries without authorization … the emblem or flags of the Red Cross, or symbols corresponding to them …
shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
(2) Whoever perpetrates the criminal offence referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article during a state of war or imminent war …
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 184.
Botswana
Botswana’s Red Cross Society Act (1983) provides that “it shall not be lawful for any person other than the Society or such persons as may be authorized thereto under the [1949] Geneva Conventions to use for the purpose of his trade or business, or for any other purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, any design being a colourable imitation of those emblems, as well as the words “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross” or translation thereof. 
Botswana, Red Cross Society Act, 1968, Section 10.
Brunei Darussalam
Brunei Darussalam’s Red Crescent Society Act (1983) provides:
It shall not be lawful for any person, other than the [Red Crescent Society] and its staff, officials and members, to use for the purpose of his trade of business, or for any other purpose whatsoever, in Brunei without the authority of the Minister, the emblem of a red crescent on a white background … and the words “Bulan Sabit Merah” or in English “Red Crescent”. 
Brunei Darussalam, Red Crescent Society Act, 1983, Article 13.
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, provides that “a person who, without having such right, bears the emblem of the Red Cross or of the Red Crescent, or who abuses a flag or a sign of the Red Cross or of the Red Crescent or the colour determined for the transport vehicles for medical evacuation” commits a war crime. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended in 1999, Article 413.
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Red Cross Society Law (1995) provides:
In case of war, the use of the emblem shall be restricted in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 … The misuse of the emblem set up by the Geneva Conventions … and the name of the Red Cross shall be punished. 
Bulgaria, Red Cross Society Law, 1995, Articles 8 and 9.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Code of Military Justice (1994) punishes the improper use, in violation of the laws and customs of war, of the distinctive insignia and emblems for the protection of persons, objects and locations as defined in international conventions, in time of war and in an area of military operations. 
Burkina Faso, Code of Military Justice, 1994, Article 205.
Burundi
Burundi’s Red Cross Decree (1912) punishes “any person who, without being entitled to do so … uses the emblem or the denomination of the ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’, or equivalent emblems or denominations that may cause confusion, … for any … purpose”. 
Burundi, Red Cross Decree, 1912, Article 2.
The Decree also punishes “any person who, in time of war, uses, without being entitled to do so, the armlet or the flag of the Red Cross”. 
Burundi, Red Cross Decree, 1912, Article 3.
Burundi
Burundi’s Military Penal Code (1980) states:
Any person who, in the area of operations of a force or unit [and] in violation of the laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by the international conventions to ensure respect for persons, objects and places protected by these conventions, is punished with two to five years’ imprisonment. 
Burundi, Military Penal Code, 1980, Article 60.
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
g) making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(g).
Burundi
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
Article 198
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:
2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
7°. Making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the [1949] Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;
Article 336
Those who, without having the right to do so, use the flag, emblem or name … of the Red Cross … are punished by three years’ penal servitude …
The penalty can be extended to ten years if the flag or emblem of the Red Cross has been abusively used in times of war by a person who is not entitled to use it pursuant to the 1906 Geneva Convention. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Articles 198(2)(7°) and 336.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Emblem Law (1997) provides:
Any use of the emblem or name “Red Cross” by a physical or legal person other than those having the right to do so by virtue of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, of their Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 and of the present law is strictly forbidden. 
Cameroon, Emblem Law, 1997, Article 14(1).
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
Canada
The Canadian Red Cross Society Act (1909), as amended by an Act assented to on 22 June 2007, states:
No person shall wear, use or display for the purposes of his or her trade or business, for the purpose of inducing the belief that he or she is a member or representative of, or agent for, the Society or for any other purposes whatsoever, without the Society’s written authorization, any of the following:
(a) the heraldic emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground, or the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”;
(b) the emblem of the Red Crescent on a white ground, referred to in Article 38 of Schedule I to the Geneva Conventions Act, or the words “Red Crescent”;
(c) the third Protocol emblem – commonly known as the “Red Crystal” – referred to in Article 2, paragraph 2 of Schedule VII to the Geneva Conventions Act and composed of a red frame in the shape of a square on edge on a white ground, or the words “Red Crystal”; or
(d) any other word, mark, device or thing likely to be mistaken for anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c). 
Canada, Canadian Red Cross Society Act, 1909, as amended by An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act, assented to on 22 June 2007, Section 4(1).
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Law on the Red Cross Emblem (2009) states: “No one shall use the Emblem or the name of the Red Cross unless such use is in accordance with the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the [1977] Additional Protocols or with the present law.” 
Central African Republic, Law on the Red Cross Emblem, 2009, Article 5.
Article 17 of the law states:
Any natural or legal person shall be punished in accordance with the Penal code of the Central African Republic, if he or she:
- intentionally and without a right to do so uses the protective … Emblem … of the Red Cross, the term Red Cross, a distinctive signal or any other sign, denomination or signal which constitutes an imitation or which may lead to confusion, whatever the aim of its use. 
Central African Republic, Law on the Red Cross Emblem, 2009, Article 17.
Chad
Chad’s Code of Military Justice (1962) punishes “any individual who, in the area of operations of a military force, publicly employs, without being entitled to do so, the armlet, flag or emblem of the red cross, or equivalent armlets, flags or emblems”. 
Chad, Code of Military Justice, 1962, Article 87.
Chad
Chad’s Emblem Law (2014) states:
CHAPTER III: PROTECTION OF THE EMBLEM
Article 8: The Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry of Defence ensure at all times strict compliance with the rules governing the use of the emblems of the red cross or the red crescent, the denomination “Red Cross” and “Red Crescent” and the distinctive signals. They exercise strict control over the persons authorized to use them.
In the case of a violation of the provisions of the present law, the Ministry of Public Health may request the opening of criminal or civil proceedings.
Article 9: The Red Cross of Chad cooperates with the public authorities in their efforts to prevent and repress any misuse. It reports any misuse to these authorities and may participate in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings.
CHAPTER IV: CRIMINAL PROVISIONS
Article 10: Shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of fifteen days to two years and a fine of 50,000 to 200,000 francs or either of these sentences only:
- any person who, intentionally and without entitlement, uses the emblem of the red cross or the red crescent or the designation “Red Cross” or [“]Red Crescent”, a distinctive signal or any other sign, denomination or signal which constitutes an imitation thereof or which might lead to confusion, irrespective of the aim of such use;
- any person who, in particular, displays the said emblems or designations on signs, posters, announcements, leaflets or commercial documents, or affixes them to goods or packaging, or sells, offers for sale or places in circulation goods thus marked;
- any person who commits or gives the order to commit the offence in the management of a corporate body.
Article 12: Any person who, in time of war, intentionally and without entitlement, uses the emblem of the red cross or red crescent or a distinctive signal, or any other sign or signal which constitutes an imitation thereof or which may lead to confusion, is punished by imprisonment for a period of five to twenty years.
Article 14: The jurisdictions competent for the crimes defined within the present chapter take any necessary interim measures. They may, in particular, order the seizure of objects and material marked in violation of the present Law, demand the removal of the emblem of the red cross, red crescent and of the words “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent”, and order the destruction of the instruments used for their reproduction. 
Chad, Emblem Law, 2014, Articles 8–10, 12 and 14.
Chile
Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925) provides that a person “who, in time of war and in the area of operations of a land military force, uses without being entitled to do so, the insignia, flags or emblems of the Red Cross” commits a punishable offence against international law. 
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Article 264.
Chile
Chile’s Emblem Law (1939), as amended in 1997, states:
Article 1. The emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the expressions “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” may be used, in peace time or in time of war, only as provided for by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977.
Article 4. The use of any sign or denomination which constitutes an imitation of the emblem of the red cross on a white ground or of the names Red Cross or Geneva Cross, as well as the use of similar emblems or words which can create confusion, for commercial or any other purpose, is prohibited. 
Chile, Emblem Law, 1939, as amended in 1997, Articles 1 and 4.
China
China’s Law on the Red Cross Society (1993) states:
Article 16 The sign of the Red Cross plays a protective role and an indicative role as well.
The protective role of the sign of the Red Cross is to show the personnel and equipment that must be respected and protected in armed conflicts. The sign shall be used in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
The indicative role of the sign of the Red Cross is to show the personnel or goods that are involved in activities of the Red Cross. The way the sign is to be used shall be defined by the State Council.
Article 18 In case the armed forces use the sign of the Red Cross, the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols shall apply.
Article 19 Abuse of the sign of the Red Cross is prohibited.
In case the sign of the Red Cross is abused, the Red Cross Society shall have the right to demand such acts cease; in case of refusing to cease such acts, the Red Cross Society may appeal to the people’s government to deal with the matter according to the provisions of relevant laws and regulations. 
China, Law on the Red Cross Society, 1993, Articles 16 and 18–19.
China
China’s Emblem Regulations (1996) provide:
Use of the red cross emblem by any organizations or individuals other than those mentioned in the present Regulations [medical establishments of the armed forces, the Chinese Red Cross Society, as well as foreign and domestic voluntary relief organizations and international Red Cross institutions with the approval of the State Council or the Central Military Commission] shall be forbidden. 
China, Emblem Regulations, 1996, Article 3.
Colombia
Colombia’s Emblem Decree (1998) provides: “All national authorities shall ensure, in all circumstances, strict respect for the norms concerning the proper use of the emblem of the Red Cross and the denomination ‘Red Cross’ and the distinctive signals.” 
Colombia, Emblem Decree, 1998, Article 11.
Colombia
Colombia’s Emblem Law (2004) states:
Improper use of the emblem: Improper Use means the use of the emblem of the red cross or the term “red cross” by persons not authorized under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols and the present law, as well as the use of any sign, signal or term that constitutes a limitation or may give rise to confusion, irrespective of the purpose of such use. 
Colombia, Emblem Law, 2004, Article 11.
(emphasis in original)
Colombia
Colombia’s Decree No. 138 (2005) states:
Improper use of the emblem: This refers to the utilization of the protective emblem of the Red Cross or the term “Red Cross” by personnel not authorized under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, its Additional Protocols, Law 875 of 2004 and the present decree, as well as the use of any other sign, signal or term that constitutes a limitation or that may give rise to confusion, irrespective of the objective of such use. 
Colombia, Decree No. 138, 2005, Article 2.
[emphasis in original]
Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute.  
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands provides that “no person may, without the authority of the Minister or a person authorised by the Minister in writing to give consent under this section, use for any purpose” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the distinctive signals of identification for medical units and transports, the designations “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any emblem, designation, or signal, so nearly resembling any of those emblems, designations, or signals as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems, designations, or signals. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 10(1).
Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s Emblem Law (2000) punishes “any person who uses without authorization the emblem of the Red Cross, the distinctive signals, the denomination Red Cross or imitation which can create confusion”. 
Costa Rica, Emblem Law, 2000, Article 7.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 1998, punishes “anyone who, in an area of military operations, uses, in violation of the laws and customs of war, the distinctive insignia and emblems, defined by international conventions, to ensure respect for protected persons, objects and places”. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1998, Article 473.
Croatia
Croatia’s Emblem Law (1993) punishes any legal person “using the red cross emblem and name, while according to the [1949 Geneva Conventions] and on the basis of this Law, [it] does not have right to do so”. 
Croatia, Emblem Law, 1993, Article 18.
Croatia
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), “whoever misuses or carries without authorization the flag or emblem of … the International Red Cross” commits a war crime. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 168(1).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, punishes whoever “misuses or carries without authorization the flag or emblem of the … International Red Cross”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 168(1).
Cuba
Cuba’s Emblem Decree (1910) provides: “Unlawful use of the insignia of the Red Cross … shall be judged and condemned in accordance with military penal law.” 
Cuba, Emblem Decree, 1910, § 6.
Cuba
Cuba’s Military Criminal Code (1979) punishes “anyone who, in areas of military operations, uses unlawfully the Red Cross insignia, flags or symbols”. 
Cuba, Military Criminal Code, 1979, Article 45.
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Geneva Conventions Act (1966) provides: “The use for any purpose of the distinctive emblem which is used in the Republic under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, without the Council of Ministers’ permission, is prohibited.” 
Cyprus, Geneva Conventions Act, 1966, Section 6.
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) provides: “The use for any purpose of the distinctive emblem or signal which is used in the Republic, under the provisions of this Protocol, without the Council of Ministers’ permission, is prohibited.” 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 6.
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, punishes any person who “misuses the insignia of the Red Cross, or other signs or colours recognized in international law as designating medical institutions or vehicles used for medical assistance or evacuation”. 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 265(1).
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Emblem and Red Cross Society Act (1992) punishes “anyone who misuses the emblem or the name [red cross on a white ground and the words ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’] … or anyone who assists in such misuse, … in case this act was perpetrated at times to which the [1949] Geneva Conventions apply”. 
Czech Republic, Emblem and Red Cross Society Act, 1992, § 2.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Red Cross Decree (1912) punishes “any person who, without being entitled to do so … uses the emblem or the denomination of the ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’, or equivalent emblems or denominations that may cause confusion, … for any … purpose”. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Red Cross Decree, 1912, Article 2.
The Decree also punishes “any person who, in time of war, uses, without being entitled to do so, the armlet or the flag of the Red Cross”. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Red Cross Decree, 1912, Article 3.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended in 1980, punishes “any individual, whether military or not, who, in time of war … improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by international conventions to ensure respect for the persons, objects and places protected under these conventions”. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice, 1972, as amended in 1980, Article 455.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 86
Punished with five to ten years of penal servitude is whoever, in time of war, or in a region where a state of siege or of emergency has been proclaimed, or at the occasion of a police operation aimed at maintaining or re-establishing public order, in violation of the laws and customs of war unduly employs the distinctive insignia and emblems defined by the international conventions to ensure respect for the persons, objects as well as localities protected by these conventions. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 86.
Denmark
Denmark’s Penal Code (1930), as amended to 2008, states:
(1) A fine is imposed on any person who intentionally or negligently, in an improper manner, uses
(ii) badges, insignia or designations reserved for persons, facilities or equipment intended to assist wounded or ill persons at war.
(2) The provision of subsection (1) applies correspondingly to imitations of such badges, insignia, official garments and designations. 
Denmark, Penal Code, 1930, as amended to 2008, Article 132.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who in time of war abuses or fails to respect any badge or designation that is restricted to personnel, institutions and materiel designed to give assistance to wounded or sick persons shall be punishable by fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment. 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:
1. Any person who during armed conflict deliberately abuses or fails to respect any badge or designation that is restricted to personnel, institutions and materiel designed to give assistance to wounded or sick persons shall be punishable with imprisonment up to life imprisonment.
2. 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.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Emblem Regulation (1972) provides: “The name and emblem of the Red Cross shall be efficiently protected against any abuse.” 
Ecuador, Emblem Regulation, 1972, Article 9.
Egypt
Egypt’s Emblem Law (1940) provides:
It is prohibited for persons other than the medical section of the Army or establishments or units attached thereto, or other societies so authorized, to use, in time of peace or in time of war, under any form and for any purpose, the Red Crescent and Red Cross emblems as well as their names.  
Egypt, Emblem Law, 1940, Article 1(1).
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Emblem Law (2000) punishes:
anyone who, without the corresponding authorization, makes use of the emblem of the red cross, red crescent, or of the names “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross” or “Red Crescent”, or of any other sign or word which is an imitation thereof or which can create confusion with those emblems and names. 
El Salvador, Emblem Law, 2000, Article 15.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Emblem Law (2000), as amended in 2009, states:
Amend Art. 15, paragraph one, [of the 2000 Emblem Law] in the following manner:
“Art. 15.- Anyone who, without the corresponding authorization, makes [improper] use of the emblems or names: ‘Red Cross’, ‘Geneva Cross’, ‘Red Crescent’, ‘Red Crystal’ or of any other sign or word which is an imitation thereof or which can create confusion with those emblems or names will be sanctioned in accordance with the applicable criminal legislation; in the same way, anyone who places these emblems or words on labels, posters, announcements, brochures or commercial papers, or uses them in merchandise or the packaging of this, or sells or offers to sell or distribute merchandise in this way, will immediately be confiscated without prejudice to the corresponding criminal sanctions.” 
El Salvador, Emblem Law, 2000, as amended in 2009, Article 5.
Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “exploitative abuse of the emblem or name of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun” is a war crime. 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 105.
Ethiopia
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), it is a punishable offence to wear without authorization the emblems or insignia of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 294(a).
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 282.- Abuse of Emblems and Insignia of International Humanitarian Organizations.
Whoever intentionally:
(a) bears, flies or uses without due authorization the emblems or insignia of [the International Red Cross or Red Crescent or a corresponding humanitarian relief organization]
is punishable with simple imprisonment, or, in cases of exceptional gravity, with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 282.
The Criminal Code of 2004 repealed Ethiopia’s Penal Code of 1957.
Fiji
Fiji’s Geneva Conventions Promulgation (2007), as amended in 2009, states:
Part IV—Misuse of the Red Cross and Other Emblems, Signs, Signals, Identity Cards, Insignia and Uniforms
Use of red cross, red crescent and other emblems, etc.
12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the consent in writing of the Minister of Home Affairs or a person authorized in writing by the Minister to give consent under this section, to use or display for any purpose whatsoever any of the following:
(a) the emblem of a red cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by a white ground, or the designation “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”;
(b) the emblem of a red crescent moon on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, or the designation “Red Crescent”;
(c) the following emblem in red on, and completely surrounded by a white ground, that is to say a lion passing from right to left of, and with its face turned towards, the observer, holding erect in its raised right forepaw a scimitar, with, appearing above the lion’s back, the upper half of the sun shooting forth rays, or the designation “Red Lion and Sun”;
(d) the following emblem in red on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, that is to say, a red frame in the shape of a square on edge (whether or not incorporating within its centre another emblem or combination thereof in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1 of [2005 Additional] Protocol III), or the designation “Red Crystal” or the designation “third Protocol emblem”;
(g) any of the distinctive signals specified in Chapter III of Annex I to [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I being the signals of identification for medical units and transports.
(i) a design, wording or signal so nearly resembling any of the emblems, designations, signs or signals specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems, designations, signs or signals. 
Fiji, Geneva Conventions Promulgation, 2007, as amended in 2009, § 12(1)(a)–(d), (g) and (i).
Finland
Finland’s Emblem Act (1979) provides:
The distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, the terms “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” … shall not be used in cases other than those provided for in this Act … Signs, pictures or terms which resemble the emblems, signs or terms referred to in § 1 to such a degree that confusion may arise shall not be used. 
Finland, Emblem Act, 1979, §§ 1 and 2.
The Act punishes “whosoever makes use of the emblems, signs, pictures or terms referred to in §§ 1 and 2 in … unauthorized activity”. 
Finland, Emblem Act, 1979, § 6.
Finland
Finland’s Revised Penal Code (1995) provides: “A person who in an act of war … abuses an international symbol designated for the protection of the wounded or the sick … shall be sentenced for a war crime.” 
Finland, Revised Penal Code, 1995, Chapter 11, Section 1(1)(2).
Finland
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “misuses … the symbols referred to in the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol I or III to the Geneva Conventions” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(11).
(emphasis in original)
France
France’s Emblem Law (1939) provides:
The use, either by private individuals or by societies or associations other than [medical services of the armed forces and societies officially authorized to give assistance], of the said emblems or denominations [red cross, “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”], as well as of any signs or denominations constituting an imitation thereof, regardless of the purpose … of the use, is prohibited at all times. 
France, Emblem Law, 1939, Article 1.
France
France’s Code of Military Justice (1982) punishes:
any individual, military or not, who, in time of war, in the area of operations of a force or unit, in violation of the laws and customs of war, uses improperly the distinctive signs and emblems defined by international conventions to ensure the respect for persons, objects and places protected by those conventions. 
France, Code of Military Justice, 1982, Article 439.
France
France’s Code of Military Justice (2006) states:
The offence by any person, military or not, who in times of war, in the area of operations of a force or unit, in violation of the laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by the international conventions to ensure the respect for persons, objects and places protected by these conventions, is punished with five years’ imprisonment. 
France, Code of Military Justice, 2006, Article L. 322-16.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “[Combatants] are … prohibited to improperly use … the distinctive emblems recognized by international law.” 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-9.
Georgia
Georgia’s Criminal Code (1960) punishes the “illegal use of the Red Cross and Red Crescent distinctive signs as well as their titles”. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1960, Article 224.
The Criminal Code also punishes the “use of Red Cross and Red Crescent signs in the zones of military operation by persons having no such right, as well as misuse in wartime of flags or signs of the Red Cross and Red Crescent or of the distinctive colours of sanitary evacuation transport”. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1960, Article 283.
Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury” in international armed conflicts, is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(d).
Germany
Germany’s Law on Administrative Offences (1968) provides:
(1) Whoever uses the distinctive emblem of the red cross on a white ground or the denomination “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” without authorization, acts irregularly.
(2) Whoever uses the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation without authorization, also acts irregularly.
(3) Emblems, denominations and heraldic signs which are as similar as to be mistaken with those mentioned in paragraphs (1) and (2) stand on an equal footing.
(4) Paragraphs (1) and (3) apply by analogy to such emblems or denominations which, according to international law, stand on the same footing as the emblem of the red cross on a white ground or the denomination “Red Cross”. 
Germany, Law on Administrative Offences, 1968, § 125.
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “makes improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions … thereby causing a person’s death or serious injury”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 10(2).
Ghana
Ghana’s Red Cross Emblem Decree (1973) punishes violations of its provisions, including:
Except as otherwise provided in this Decree, no person shall after the expiry of six months from the commencement of this Decree, use any of the Red Cross Emblems … [red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun] for any purpose whatsoever. 
Ghana, Red Cross Emblem Decree, 1973, Sections 1 and 7.
Greece
Greece’s Emblem Law (1914) punishes any “soldier who makes an illegal use of the sign of the red cross on a white ground or of the designation ‘Red Cross’ in time of war”. 
Greece, Emblem Law, 1914, Article 5.
The Law also punishes any civilian who commits the same acts. 
Greece, Emblem Law, 1914, Article 6.
Greece
Greece’s Military Penal Code (1995) punishes any military person who, in time of war and in the operation zones, publicly wears a badge or armlet or carries the flag with the red cross emblem without being entitled to do so. 
Greece, Military Penal Code, 1995, Article 68(2).
Grenada
Grenada’s Red Cross Society Law (1981), as amended in 1986, provides:
It shall not be lawful for any person other than those authorised under section 5 of this Law [Grenada Red Cross Society] or under the provisions of the [1949] Geneva Conventions to use for any purpose whatever the emblem of the red cross on a white ground mentioned in section 5 of this Law or the emblems of the red crescent or red lion on a white ground or any colourable imitations thereof or the words “Red Cross”. 
Grenada, Red Cross Society Law as amended, 1981, Section 9(1).
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Emblem Law (1997) provides: “The emblem of the Red Cross, as well as the denominations ‘Red Cross’ and ‘Geneva Cross’, may only be used for the purposes provided for in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of [1977]”. 
Guatemala, Emblem Law, 1997, Article 2.
It punishes “any person who, without authorization, makes use of the emblem of the red cross or the names previously mentioned in this law, or of any other imitation that can create confusion”. 
Guatemala, Emblem Law, 1997, Article 11.
Guinea
Guinea’s Emblem Law (1995) provides: “Nobody shall make use of the emblem and name of the Red Cross without having been authorized to do so by the provisions of the present law and the [1949] Geneva Conventions.” 
Guinea, Emblem Law, 1995, Article 4.
It punishes “anyone who wears or uses in time of war the emblem of the Red Cross as a protective sign without belonging to the category of persons mentioned in article 8 paragraph 1 of the present law [personnel of public health organizations]”. 
Guinea, Emblem Law, 1995, Article 11.
Guinea
Guinea’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes “anyone [who], in an area of military operations and in violation of the laws and customs of war, uses distinctive insignia and emblems defined in international conventions to ensure respect for protected persons, objects and places”. 
Guinea, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 579.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Military Justice (2011) states:
Any person who, in times of war or armed conflict, in an area of military operations and in violation of laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by International Conventions to ensure respect for persons, property and sites protected by these conventions, shall be punished with one (01) to five (05) years’ imprisonment. 
Guinea, Code of Military Justice, 2011, Article 158.
Guyana
Guyana’s Red Cross Society Act (1967) punishes:
any person not being a member of the [National Red Cross] Society who – …
wears or displays the emblem of the red cross on an article of clothing, badge, paper, or in any other way whatsoever, or any insignia coloured in imitation thereof in such a way as to be likely to deceive those to whom it is visible, for the purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of, or an agent for the Society, or that he has been recognized by the Society as possessing any qualification for administering first aid or other treatment for the relief of sickness. 
Guyana, Red Cross Society Act, 1967, Section 9(b).
Honduras
Honduras’s Emblem Law (1971) provides:
The emblem of the International Red Cross consisting of a red cross on a white ground, as well as the words “Red Cross” and “Geneva Cross”, shall only be used to protect and identify the personnel and materials protected by the Geneva Conventions, number I and II of 12 August 1949, such as the establishments, units, personnel, material, vehicles, ships, hospitals and ambulances of the Medical and Relief Service of the Armed Forces of Honduras, of the Honduras Red Cross and of other relief societies duly recognized and officially authorized to provide assistance to the Medical Service of the Armed Forces, as well as the chaplains and doctors who offer their professional services to the [Armed Forces]. The emblem and the name of the Red Cross shall not be used otherwise, with the exception of the cases mentioned in Articles 2 and 5 of the present Law inter alia, civilian hospitals, their personnel, medical zones and localities, transports of wounded and sick civilians]. 
Honduras, Emblem Law, 1971, Article 1.
Hungary
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, “whoever in war-time misuses the sign of the red cross (red crescent, red lion and sun) or other signs serving a similar purpose and recognized internationally” is guilty, upon conviction, of a war crime. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Article 164.
Hungary
Hungary’s Red Cross Society Act (1993), as amended in 1994, provides:
(3) The sign and emblem [of the red cross on a white ground] respectively together with the designation … may only be used, in times of peace or war, beside the Red Cross, by health formations and institutions specified in international treaties and may only be used for the protection [or] designation of the staff and equipment of the previously mentioned …
(5) Use of the emblem apart from the ways specified in paragraphs (3) and (4) constitutes … a summary offence. 
Hungary, Red Cross Society Act, 1993, as amended in 1994, § 5(3) and (5).
India
India’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) provides that “no person shall, without the approval of the Central Government, use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
India, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 12.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Penal Code (1946) punishes anyone who uses, without being entitled to do so, a mark of distinction which is assigned to a certain society or to the personnel of the health service of armed forces. 
Indonesia, Penal Code, 1946, Article 508.
Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts: “Making improper use of … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury”. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(H).
Ireland
Ireland’s Red Cross Act (1938), as amended in 1998, provides that “it shall not be lawful for any person to use for … any … purpose whatsoever, without the consent of the Minister of Defence,” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, or any emblems closely resembling such heraldic emblems, as well as the words “Cros Dearg”, “Cros na Geinéibhe”, “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or any words closely resembling these words. 
Ireland, Red Cross Act as amended, 1938, Section 4(1) and (1A).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Articles 44, 53 and 54 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I and 44 and 45 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Articles 18(8) and 38(1), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 12, are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Islamic Republic of Iran
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Penal Code relating to Offences Committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Armed Forces (1992) states that “any military person who, during war … openly uses a flag or bracelet or other symbols of the Red Crescent [or equivalent symbol] … without any right to do so, will be sentenced to imprisonment [for a period of between] two months to two years”. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Penal Code relating to Offences Committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Armed Forces, 1992, Article 96.
Israel
Israel’s Red Shield of David Law (1950) provides:
(a) No person shall make any use of the emblem of the [Red Shield of David in Israel] Society or an emblem so similar to it as to be misleading or an emblem containing the words “Magen David Adom”, whether for the purpose of a business or trade or for any other purpose, except by permission of the Society.
(b) No person shall make any use of any emblem recognised by the [1949] Geneva Conventions as a distinctive emblem of the medical services of the armed forces, unless he is authorised by these Conventions or by permission of the Minister of Health to use it.
(c) A person contravening the provisions of this section is liable to imprisonment. 
Israel, Red Shield of David Law, 1950, Section 7.
Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, emphasizes that it is prohibited “to use improperly … the distinctive signs of the Red Cross, of the other authorized relief societies, of hospital ships and of medical aircraft”. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 36(1).
Italy
Italy’s Law concerning the Unlawful Use of the Emblem (1912) punishes “anyone who, without authorization of the Government, adopts, as emblem, the red cross on a white ground, or makes use of the designation ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’”. 
Italy, Law concerning the Unlawful Use of the Emblem, 1912, Article 1.
Italy
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) punishes anyone who “uses improperly … the distinctive sign of the Red Cross”. 
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 180(2).
Japan
Japan’s Emblem Law (1947) provides that the emblem of the red cross (and equivalent) should not be used without permission. 
Japan, Emblem Law, 1947, Article 1.
Anyone who violates this provision may be sentenced to imprisonment. 
Japan, Emblem Law, 1947, Article 4.
Japan
Japan’s Civil Protection Law (2004) states:
(Issuance etc. of Red Cross Emblems etc.)
Article 157
1. No person may abuse, in armed attack situations etc., distinctive signals (distinctive signal under Article 8 (m) of the [1977] Additional Protocol I … or identity cards (identity card under Article 18 Paragraph 3 of the Additional Protocol I).
Article 189
A person who falls under either of the following shall be subject to imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than 300,000 yen:
(2) A person who abuses distinctive signals or identity cards in violation of Article 157 Paragraph 1. 
Japan, Civil Protection Law, 2004, Articles 157(1) and 189(2).
Jordan
Jordan’s Red Crescent Society Law (1969) punishes “anyone who uses the sign or emblem [red crescent/red cross] without authorization”. 
Jordan, Red Crescent Society Law, 1969, Article 5(b).
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s Penal Code (1997) punishes the “illegal use of the emblem and identifying symbols of the Red Cross/Red Crescent as well as illegal use of the name of the Red Cross/Red Crescent”. 
Kazakhstan, Penal Code, 1997, Article 291.
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan’s Emblem Law (2000) provides:
Anyone who, intentionally and without being entitled to do so, makes use of the emblem of the red crescent or red cross, of a distinctive signal, or of any other sign or signal constituting an imitation thereof or being capable of causing confusion shall be held responsible in conformity with the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic. 
Kyrgyzstan, Emblem Law, 2000, Article 10.
Lebanon
Lebanon’s Code of Military Justice (1968) punishes “any person who, [in time of war] publicly and without being entitled to do so, uses in combat areas the emblem, flag or symbol of the red cross, or equivalent emblems, flags or symbols”. 
Lebanon, Code of Military Justice, 1968, Article 146.
Lesotho
Lesotho’s Red Cross Society Act (1967) provides:
It is unlawful for any person other than a person authorised under section seven [the personnel of the Red Cross Society] or under the provisions of the [1949 Geneva Conventions] to use for any purpose whatsoever the emblems … [red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun] or the words “Red Cross”. 
Lesotho, Red Cross Society Act, 1967, Section 12(1).
Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein’s Emblem Law (1957) states:
The sign of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” may, without prejudice to the cases mentioned in the following articles, only be used, in times of peace and war, in order to mark the personnel and material protected by [the 1949 Geneva Conventions I and II], namely, the personnel, units, transports, installations and medical material of the medical service of the armed forces, including the voluntary medical services of the Red Cross of Liechtenstein, as well as the chaplains assigned to the armed forces.
Whoever uses, intentionally and in violation of the rules of this law, … the sign of the red cross on a white ground or the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or any other sign or word which could create confusion … will be punished. 
Liechtenstein, Emblem Law, 1957, Articles 1 and 8.
Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, “unlawful use of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, sign … in time of war or during an international armed conflict” is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 344.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Emblem Law (1914) punishes “those who, without valid authorization, carry the emblem of the Red Cross”. 
Luxembourg, Emblem Law, 1914, Article 1.
Malawi
Malawi’s Red Cross Society Act (1968) states that “no person, other than a person so authorized under the [1949 Geneva Conventions], shall use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, and the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
Malawi, Red Cross Society Act, 1968, Section 8(1).
Malaysia
Malaysia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962) provides that “it shall not be lawful for any person to use for the purpose of his trade or business, or for any other purpose whatsoever, in the Federation without the authority of the Minister”, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, as well as any design being a colourable imitation of those emblems or any words so nearly resembling the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” as to be capable of being understood as referring to the said emblem. 
Malaysia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, Sections 8 and 9.
Malaysia
Malaysia’s Red Cross Society (Change of name) Act (1975), as amended to 2006, states:
It shall not be lawful for any person, other than the … [Malaysian Red Cross Society] and its staff, officials and members, to use for the purpose of his trade or business, or for any other purpose whatsoever, in the Federation without the authority of the Minister, the emblem of a red crescent on a white background … and the words “Bulan Sabit Merah” or, in English, “Red Crescent”. 
Malaysia, Malaysian Red Cross Society (Change of name) Act, 1975, as amended to 2006, Article 5(1).
Mali
Mali’s Code of Military Justice (1995) punishes:
any individual … who, in time of war, in the area of operations of a military force and in violation of the laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined in international conventions to ensure respect for persons, objects and places protected by these conventions. 
Mali, Code of Military Justice, 1995, Article 145.
Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “using … the distinctive signs provided for by the Geneva Conventions and, thereby, causing loss of human lives or serious injuries” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(7).
Malta
Malta’s Red Cross Society Act (1992) provides:
(a) It shall not be lawful for any person other than the [Red Cross] Society or any other person authorised under the provisions of the [1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1977 Additional Protocol II] to use for any purpose whatever the emblem of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent or any distinctive emblem as is referred to in Article 38 of [the 1949 Geneva Convention I], any colourable imitation thereof, or words “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent” in any language.
(b) Any person who contravenes the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be guilty of [a punishable] offence. 
Malta, Red Cross Society Act, 1992, Section 4(2).
Mauritius
The Geneva Conventions Act (1970) of Mauritius provides that, “subject to this section, no person shall, without the authority of the Minister, use” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
Mauritius, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 8.
Mexico
Mexico’s Emblem Law (2006) states:
The emblem of the red cross, as well as the designation “Red Cross”, can only be used in conformity with the purposes set out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols and any other regulation issued by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. 
Mexico, Emblem Law, 2006, Article 5.
The Law also states:
Article 19. The Ministry of Government is the competent authority to monitor compliance with this law and, when appropriate, to impose administrative sanctions for the use of the emblem or designation of “Red Cross” by persons or entities that, according to this law, are not entitled nor authorized to use them.
Article 20. Any person who uses, without authorization, the emblem of the red cross, the distinctive signs, the designation “Red Cross” or any other [sign or designation constituting an] imitation that can create confusion with the protected [Red Cross] emblem … will be sanctioned with a fine … , without prejudice to the application of sanctions provided by the relevant criminal legislation. 
Mexico, Emblem Law, 2006, Articles 19 and 20.
The Law also states:
The term “Red Cross” used in this law to make reference to the emblem or to the designation shall be understood as referring analogously to the emblem of the red crescent and to the designation “Red Crescent”, as well as to other emblems and designations provided for in international legal instruments to which Mexico is a party and which have the same use, function and purpose as provided for and regulated by international humanitarian law. 
Mexico, Emblem Law, 2006, Article 1.
Monaco
Monaco’s Emblem Law (1953) prohibits the use of the red cross emblem by a person, society or association other than those authorized under the Geneva Conventions. Any breach of this provision shall be punished. 
Monaco, Emblem Law, 1953, Articles 1 and 2.
Morocco
Morocco’s Emblem Law (1958) prohibits:
a) the use, either by private individuals or by societies or associations other than [medical services of the armed forces and authorized voluntary relief societies], of the emblem of the Red Crescent and of the words “Red Crescent”;
b) the use of any sign and designation constituting an imitation thereof. 
Morocco, Emblem Law, 1958, Article 2.
Morocco
Morocco’s Code of Military Justice (1956) punishes “any individual who, in time of war, in the area of operations of a military field unit, publicly employs, without being entitled to do so, the armlet, the flag or emblem of the Red Crescent or Red Cross, or equivalent armlets, flags or emblems”. 
Morocco, Code of Military Justice, 1956, Article 189.
Netherlands
Under the Penal Code (1881), as amended in 1984, of the Netherlands, the use without prior authorization of the red cross emblem, the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or of other recognized protective emblems or terminology is a criminal offence. 
Netherlands, Penal Code, 1881, as amended in 1984, Article 435(c).
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury”, is a crime, when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(3)(f).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides that, “subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Minister of Defence or a person authorised by him in writing to give consent under this section, to use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 8.
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Law (1980) punishes “anyone who, in the area of military operations, unlawfully uses symbols of the Red Cross”. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Law, 1980, Article 83.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any soldier who, in time of war and in an area of military operations, “unlawfully displays … the insignia, flags or emblems of the Red Cross”. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 50(1).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Emblem Law (2002) provides: “The emblem of the Red Cross, as well as the denominations ‘Red Cross’ and ‘Geneva Cross’, may only be used for the purposes defined under the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977.” 
Nicaragua, Emblem Law, 2002, Article 2.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) states that “subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Minister of the Federation charged with responsibility for matters relating to defence, to use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. It is also prohibited to use, without the authority of the Minister of the Federation charged with responsibility for matters relating to trade, for any purpose whatsoever the heraldic emblem of Switzerland or any other design so nearly resembling that design as to be capable of being mistaken for that heraldic emblem. 
Nigeria, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 10(1) and (3).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Revised Red Cross Society Act (1990) punishes:
any person who falsely and fraudulently … wears or displays the emblem of the Red Cross on any article of clothing, badge, piece of paper, or in any other way whatsoever, or any insignia coloured in imitation thereof in such a way as to be likely to deceive those to whom it is visible, for the purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of, or an agent for, the [Nigerian Red Cross] Society. 
Nigeria, Revised Red Cross Society Act, 1990, Section 8(b).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Norway
Norway’s Penal Code (1902) provides that it is a punishable offence to use “without authority publicly or for an unlawful purpose … any badge or designation which by international agreement binding on Norway is designed for use in connection with aid to the wounded and sick … in war”. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, § 328(4)(b).
Norway
Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states:
Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … makes improper use of … the specially protected distinctive emblems [of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols] resulting in death or serious injury. 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 105(c).
Pakistan
Pakistan’s Geneva Convention Implementing Act (1936), as amended in 1963, states:
No person other than a person entitled thereto under the Geneva Convention [for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, dated 12 August 1949] shall use, or in any manner exhibit, whether for the purpose of trade or business or for any other purpose or object whatsoever, the emblem or the designation “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Lion and Sun” or “Sun” or any sign of designation constituting an imitation thereof, irrespective of the date of the adoption of any such emblems or designation by such person:
Provided that the emblem “Red Cross” may, with the permission in writing of the [Pakistan Red Cross] Society, be used in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances or to mark the position of aid stations set up exclusively for giving free medical treatment to the wounded or sick. 
Pakistan, Geneva Convention Implementing Act, 1936, as amended in 1963, Section 2.
Panama
Panama’s Emblem Law (2001) provides:
The emblem of the Red Cross, as well as its denominations, shall only be used for the purposes provided for in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the[ir] Additional Protocols.
Any person, whether physical or legal, who, without being entitled to do so, makes use of the emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent, of the words Red Cross or Red Crescent, of a distinctive sign, denomination or signal which constitutes an imitation thereof or which can create confusion … shall be punished. 
Panama, Emblem Law, 2001, Articles 2 and 12.
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea’s Geneva Conventions Act (1976) punishes any “person who, without the consent of the Minister, uses for any purpose” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as a design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or understood as referring to, any of those emblems or designations. 
Papua New Guinea, Geneva Conventions Act, 1976, Section 13.
Paraguay
Under Paraguay’s Emblem Law (1928), any person who improperly uses the emblem of the red cross in time of war, with a view to commit acts of banditry, shall be subject to military and criminal laws. 
Paraguay, Emblem Law, 1928, Article 5.
Peru
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
Any member of the military or police who in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict kills or seriously injures a person by making improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions … shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than ten and no more than 20 years.
If the person intentionally causes the death of another person, the penalty shall be no less than 20 and no more than 30 years’ imprisonment. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 100.
This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Philippines
The Red Cross Society Decree (1979) of the Philippines states:
The use of the emblem of the red Greek cross on a white ground is reserved exclusively to the Philippine National Red Cross, medical services of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and such other medical facilities or other institutions as may be authorized by the Philippine National Red Cross … It shall be unlawful for any other person or entity to use the words Red Cross or Geneva Cross or to use the emblem of the red Greek cross on a white ground or any designation, sign, or insignia constituting an imitation thereof for any purpose whatsoever. 
Philippines, Red Cross Society Decree, 1979, Section 15.
Poland
Poland’s Red Cross Society Law (1964) provides:
The sign or the name of the Red Cross as an emblem or distinctive and protective sign may be used in situations and in accordance with the principles determined in international conventions. …
1. It shall be prohibited to use, in contravention of Art. 13, the sign or the name “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, as well as any signs or names constituting their imitations.
2. The prohibition contained in point (1) applies also to the use of signs and names of the “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”. 
Poland, Red Cross Society Law, 1964, Articles 13 and 14.
Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) punishes “any person who, during hostilities, uses the sign of the Red Cross or of the Red Crescent in violation of international law”. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 126(1).
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Red Cross Society Act (1949), as amended in 2002, provides:
The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies other than the Red Cross Society, medical institutions of the armed forces or those entitled by the Red Cross Society, of the Red Cross or equivalent emblems … shall be prohibited at all times. 
Republic of Korea, Red Cross Society Act as amended, 1949, Article 25.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “[making] improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions …, resulting in a person’s death or serious personal injury” in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 12(2).
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (1961) punishes:
the unlawful wearing and abuse of the signs of the red cross and red crescent in areas of military operations by persons not entitled to wear them, as well as the abuse in time of war of the flags or signs of the red cross and red crescent and the emblem of the ambulances and vehicles of sanitary evacuation. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 1961, Article 270; see also Article 217.
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) punishes “the use by unauthorized persons of the red cross emblem and of the name ‘Red Cross’, as well as the insignia which may be confused with the red cross emblem, if such an act causes grave consequences”. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 363.
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Emblem Law (1999) punishes “the use of the emblem of the red cross, of the words ‘Red Cross’, by individuals and legal persons not entitled to such use, as well as the use of signs which can be identified with the emblem of the red cross”. 
Republic of Moldova, Emblem Law, 1999, Article 16.
Romania
Romania’s Penal Code (1968) punishes “the unlawful use, in time of war and in relation to military operations, of the emblem or name of the ‘Red Cross’, or of equivalent signs and names”. 
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Article 351; see also Article 294.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Red Cross Decree (1912) punishes “any person who, without being entitled to do so, … uses the emblem or the denomination of the ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’, or equivalent emblems or denominations that may create confusion, … for any … purpose”. 
Rwanda, Red Cross Decree, 1912, Article 2.
The Decree also punishes “any person who, in time of war, uses, without being entitled to do so, the armlet or the flag of the Red Cross”. 
Rwanda, Red Cross Decree, 1912, Article 3.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 15
The use of the emblem of the Red Cross is exclusively reserved to the medical services as well as the personnel and material of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies as well as the National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies which are entitled to it according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the protection of victims in time of war.
Article: 16
He who, intentionally and without being entitled to it, wears or displays the emblem of humanitarian organizations, or any other sign which is an imitation or can cause confusion, shall be punished by an imprisonment sentence of six (6) months to five (5) years and a fine of fifty thousand (50,000) to one million (1,000,000) Rwandan Francs, or one of these penalties alone.
The courts can further pronounce the confiscation of the marked objects, and order the destruction of tools that have served to produce the illegal marking. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 15–16.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
The Red Cross Society Act (1985) of Saint Kitts and Nevis provides:
It shall not be lawful for any person other than those authorised … under the [1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocol I and the 1977 Additional Protocol II] to use for any purpose whatever the emblem of the red cross on white ground, or any colourable imitation thereof, or the words “Red Cross”, or the arms of the Swiss Confederation. 
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Red Cross Society Act, 1985, Section 9.
Samoa
Samoa’s Emblem Act (1993) provides: “No person or body other than the Red Cross Society may use the term Red Cross or its distinctive emblem for any purpose or activity.” 
Samoa, Emblem Act, 1993, Section 3(1).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states: “Whoever abuses or carries without authorization the … flag or symbol of the Red Cross Organization or symbols corresponding thereto or … who orders such acts to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years.” 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 385.
Seychelles
The Geneva Conventions Act (1985) of the Seychelles provides that, “subject to this section, no person shall, without the authority of the Minister, use for any purpose” the emblems of the red cross and red crescent on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross” and “Red Crescent”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
Seychelles, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, Section 9.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
10. Use of red cross and other emblems.
(1) Subject to this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the consent in writing of the Minister [of Foreign Affairs] or a person authorized in writing by the Minister to give consent under this section to use or display for any purpose whatsoever any of the following: –
(a) the emblem of a red cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, or the designation “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”
(b) the emblem of a red crescent moon on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, or the designation “Red Crescent”
(c) the emblem in red on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, that is to say, a lion passing from right to left of, and with its face turned towards, the observer, holding erect in its raised right forepaw a scimitar, with appearing above the lion’s back, the upper half of the sun shooting forth rays, or the designation “Red Lion and Sun”
(d) any design consisting of a white or silver cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a red ground, being the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation;
(h) any emblem or designation protected under any additional protocol to the [1949 Geneva] Convention[s] to which the Republic of Sierra Leone is a party;
(i) any design, wording or signal so nearly resembling any of the emblems, designations, signs or signals specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (h) as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems, designations, signs or signals;
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty million leones or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to both the fine and imprisonment.
(5) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may in addition to the term of imprisonment or fine order the forfeiture to the State, the goods in connection with which the emblem was used by that person.
(6) Where an offence under this section is committed by a body of persons –
(a) in the case of a body corporate every director or officer of that body corporate commits that offence; and
(b) in the case of a firm or partnership, every partner commits that offence.
(7) A person shall not be convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (6) if it is proved that the offence was committed without that person’s knowledge, connivance or that due diligence was exercised by that person to prevent the commission of the offence. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 10(1)(a)–(d) and (h)–(i) and (4)–(7).
Singapore
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act (1973) provides that “no person shall use for any purpose whatsoever in Singapore, without the authority of the Minister,” the emblem of the red cross on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the words “Red Cross” and “Geneva Cross”, as well as any design being a colourable imitation of those emblems or any words so nearly resembling the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” as to be capable of being understood as referring to the said emblem. 
Singapore, Geneva Conventions Act, 1973, Sections 8 and 9.
Singapore
Singapore’s Red Cross Society Act (1973) considers:
No person other than the [Singapore Red Cross] Society and any person so authorised by the Minister shall use –
(a) the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground formed by reversing the Federal Colours of Switzerland; or
(b) the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”. 
Singapore, Red Cross Society Act, 1973, Section 10(1).
Slovakia
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, punishes any person who “misuses the insignia of the Red Cross, or other signs or colours recognized in international law as designating medical institutions or vehicles used for medical assistance or evacuation”. 
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Article 265(1).
Slovakia
Slovakia’s Law on the Red Cross Society and Emblem (1994) states:
In accordance with the [1949] Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the conclusions of the international conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and rules of the International Committee of the Red Cross … for the use of the Red Cross sign and name by National Societies during peace time and war time, the sign and name of the Red Cross may only be used by:
a) the military health service for indication and protection of the health units and institutes of staff and material protected by the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols and other international conventions regulating similar affairs by which the Slovak Republic is bound;
b) the Slovak Red Cross, its institutes and staff in their activity pursuant to letter a) and during peace time, and under the conditions stipulated by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols;
c) the international organizations of the Red Cross and their staff under the conditions stipulated by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols;
d) the operators of the vehicles intended as ambulances and the operators of rescue stations exclusively intended for free treatment of the wounded or sick; for indication of these ambulances and rescue stations during peace time only with the express approval of the Slovak Red Cross. 
Slovakia, Law on the Red Cross Society and Emblem, 1994, Section 4(1).
The Law also punishes any person who unlawfully uses the sign or name of the red cross “during the time of events to which the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols relate”. 
Slovakia, Law on the Red Cross Society and Emblem, 1994, Section 5(1).
Slovenia
Slovenia’s Red Cross Society Law (1993) states:
The Red Cross symbol on a white background and the name of the Red Cross may only be used in the manner specified by the [1949] Geneva Conventions, this Law and the regulations issued for the execution thereof.
All natural persons and legal entities, except those permitted by this Law, shall be permanently prohibited from using:
–the Red Cross symbol on a white background or the name of the Red Cross or the Geneva Cross, or
–the Red Crescent symbol on a white background or the name of the Red Crescent,
–as well as any symbol or name imitating the symbol or name under the first and second items, irrespective of the purpose of their use and the time of their adoption. 
Slovenia, Red Cross Society Law, 1993, Articles 21 and 22.
Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “whoever abuses or carries without authorization … the emblems or flag of the Red Cross” commits a war crime. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 386(1).
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
A penalty of military confinement for up to seven years shall be applied to anyone who improperly uses:
(a) the distinctive signs legally adopted to ensure respect for and the protection of the hospitals, places, units, establishments, monuments, buildings and property …
(b) the distinctive signs of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, other authorized relief agencies, hospital ships, ambulance ships or their vessels, and medical aircraft allocated to military use. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 364.
South Africa
South Africa’s Geneva Conventions Notice (1915) provides: “It is an offence … to use the said emblem of the ‘Red Cross’ or ‘Geneva Cross’ for the purpose of trade or business or for any other purpose whatsoever without the authority of His Excellency the Governor-General-in-Council.” 
South Africa, Geneva Conventions Notice, 1915, § 4.
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury”. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(vii).
South Africa
South Africa’s Emblem Act (2007) provides:
Protected emblems
6. The emblems of a red cross and a red crescent moon are protected in the manner provided for in this Act and in the [1949 Geneva Conventions and 1977 Additional Protocols I and II].
Use of emblems
7. An emblem may only be used –
(a) as a sign that persons or equipment fall under the protection of the Conventions;
(b) to show that persons or equipment are connected to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement;
(c) with the authorisation of the Minister or, in respect of personnel and equipment of the South African National Defence Force, the Minister of Defence; or
(d) as otherwise authorised by the Conventions.
Offences and penalties
9. (I) No person may make use of an emblem or an imitation thereof, or words describing an emblem, unless that person –
(a) falls under the protection of the Conventions;
(b) is connected with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or any body forming part of that movement;
(e) is authorised by the Minister or, in respect of the South African National Defence Force, the Minister of Defence to make use of an emblem;
(d) is otherwise authorised by the Conventions to make use of an emblem; or
(e) uses the emblem, imitation or words for the purposes of bona fide research at a recognised educational or research institution or for the purposes of bona fide reporting in the news media.
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (I) is guilty of an offence and on conviction liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both a fine and such imprisonment. 
South Africa, Emblem Act, 2007, §§ 6–7 and 9.
Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes any soldier who “displays improperly … the distinctive signs of the Geneva Conventions”. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 75(1).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes:
anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses improperly … the protective or distinctive signs, emblems or signals established and recognized under international treaties to which Spain is a party, in particular the distinctive signs of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 612(4).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:
4. Improperly using the protective or distinctive signs, emblems or signals established and recognized under international treaties to which Spain is a party, in particular the distinctive signs of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(4).
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) states:
(1) No person, unless authorized in writing by the Minister or by any person authorized in that behalf by the Minister, shall use or display or cause to be used or displayed for any purpose whatsoever in Sri Lanka or outside, or on board any ship or aircraft registered in Sri Lanka —
(a) the emblem of the red cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a white background, or the designation “Red Cross”;
(b) the emblem of the red crescent moon on and completely surrounded by, a white background, or the designation “Red Crescent”;
(c) the emblem of a red lion passing from right to left, completely surrounded by a white background, with its face turned towards the observer, holding erect in its raised right forepaw a scimita, with the upper half of the sun shooting forth rays appearing above the lions back, or the designation “Red Lion and Sun”;
(d) the emblem of a white or silver cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length, and completely surrounded, by a red background being the heraldic emblem of the Swiss Confederation; and
(e) a design or wording so nearly resembling any of the emblems or designations specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) above, so as to be capable of being mistaken for, or being understood as referring to, any one of those emblems or designations.
(2) If at any time subsequent to the coming into operation of this Act, any additional distinctive emblem is adopted by the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, the Minister may by Order published in the Gazette declare any emblem as is so adopted, to be an emblem for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, and for the use or display of which written authorisation of the Minister would be required in terms of this section.
(3) Any person who contravenes the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction after summary trial be liable to –
(a) in the case of a first offence, to a fine not exceeding five thousand rupees;
(b) in the case of a second offence, to a fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees;
(c) in the case of a third offence, to a fine not exceeding thirty-five thousand rupees; and
(d) in the case of a subsequent offence to a fine of rupees fifty thousand and rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
(4) The Minister may make regulations specifying the instructions and guidelines on the use of the emblem and design and to make appropriate provisions regulating the use for the purposes of any of the Conventions set out in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III and Schedule IV or of any emblem and design and any conditions or limitations, to which, any authorization granted in terms of this section shall be subject to.
(5) The prohibition contained in subsection (1) shall not apply to a trade mark registered under the law applicable prior to the date of the coming into operation of this Act: and where a person is charged with contravening the provisions of subsection (1) it shall be a defence to such person to prove, –
(a) that he was lawfully using such emblem or design from a date prior to the coming into operation of this Act;
(b) that such emblem, sign, designation or signal used in connection with such goods, had been applied to such goods before such person acquired them by some other person who had manufactured or dealt with the goods in the course of trade and had been lawfully using the same prior to the coming into operation of this Act.
(6) Where an offence against this section is committed by a body of persons, then every director, manager, secretary or other officer of such body shall be guilty of an offence unless he is able to prove that the act or omission constituting the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he took all necessary steps to prevent the commission of such offence. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Section 11; see also Schedule I, Articles 53–54.
Sudan
Sudan’s Interim Red Crescent Law (2005) provides:
Anyone who, wilfully and without entitlement, has made use of the emblem of the [Sudanese Red Crescent] Society or of the emblem of the International Federation or the emblem of the International Committee of the Red Cross for other purposes than indication or protection … shall be punished by penalties prescribed for in National law. 
Sudan, Interim Red Crescent Law, 2005, Article 13(2)
Sweden
Sweden’s Emblems and Signs Act (1953), as amended in 1994, provides:
The Red Cross emblem, consisting of a red cross on a white background, or the name “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”, may not be publicly used other than as a distinctive emblem of military medical services or for military religious personnel or in such cases as specified in Section 2.
The international Red Cross organizations are entitled to use the distinctive emblem and name as specified in Section 1. The same shall apply to foreign national associations, which in their own country have the right publicly to use the emblem or the name.
Having obtained the permission of the Government, the Swedish Red Cross and other Swedish associations, whose purpose it is to provide assistance in military medical services in wartime, may use the aforesaid emblem and name. The distinctive emblem specified above may, with the permission of the Government, be used as a distinctive emblem for civilian medical services in wartime and for rescue services along the coasts. 
Sweden, Emblems and Signs Act, 1953, as amended in 1994, Sections 1 and 2.
Sweden
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, misuse of insignia referred to in the Emblems and Signs Act as amended, including the red cross, constitutes a crime against international law. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6(2).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in a chapter entitled “War crimes”:
Art. 110
Articles 112–114 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. 112c
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict:
g. makes improper use … of the distinctive emblems provided for by international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112c (1)(g).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states under the title “War crimes”:
Art. 264b
Articles 264d–264j 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. 264g
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict:
g. makes improper use … of the distinctive emblems provided for by international humanitarian law. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264g (1)(g).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Emblem Law (1954) provides:
The emblem of the red cross on white ground and the words “red cross” or “Geneva cross” shall, with the exception of the cases provided for in the following articles, be used, whether in time of peace or in time of war, only to designate the personnel and material protected by [the 1949 Geneva Conventions I and II], meaning the personnel, units, transports, establishments and material of the medical service of the armed forces, including voluntary sanitary relief of the Swiss Red Cross, as well as the chaplains attached to the armed forces.
Anyone who, intentionally and in violation of the provisions of the present law … has made use of the emblem of the red cross on a white ground or of the words “red cross” or “Geneva cross”, or of any other sign or word capable of creating confusion [commits a punishable offence]. 
Switzerland, Emblem Law, 1954, Articles 1 and 8(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Emblem Law (1954), as amended in 2008, states:
Anyone who intentionally and contrary to the provisions of the present law … has used the emblem of the red cross on white ground or the words “red cross” or “Geneva cross”, or any other sign or word that may lead to confusion,
is to be punished with imprisonment or a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss Francs; in less serious cases or if the person in question has acted with negligence, the judge may pronounce a punishment of imprisonment or a fine of up to 1,000 Swiss Francs. 
Switzerland, Emblem Law, 1954, as amended in 2008, Article 8(1).
The Law also states that the previously cited provision “applies by analogy to the emblems red crescent, red lion and sun on white ground [and] the emblem of the third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions [2005 Additional Protocol III] … [as well as] to the terms ‘red cross’, ‘red lion and sun’ and ‘emblem of the third Protocol’ or ‘red crystal’”. 
Switzerland, Emblem Law, 1954, as amended in 2008, Article 12(1).
Syrian Arab Republic
The Syrian Arab Republic’s Emblem Law (2005) provides:
a. Anyone who, without entitlement or authorization, has made use of the [Red Crescent or the Red Cross emblem];
b. Anyone who has displayed any of the two said emblems on shops, posters, announcements, leaflets, commercial documents, or has sold, offered for sale or place in circulation goods thus marked;
Shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum period of one year and the payment of a fine of 10,000 Syrian Pounds.
The penalty shall be doubled if the crime takes place during war or armed conflict. 
Syrian Arab Republic, Emblem Law, 2005, Article 6.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes the “illegal use of emblems and distinctive signs of the red cross and red crescent, as well as red cross and red crescent names”. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 333.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Emblem Law (2001) provides:
Any use of the emblems, appellations “Red Cross” and “Red Crescent” and distinctive signals by legal and natural persons within the territory of the Republic of Tajikistan, which goes against the Law, the [1949] Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, as well as the Rules on the use of the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblems by National Societies, is prohibited.
Those found guilty of breaching or improperly following the Law are liable to prosecution in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan. 
Tajikistan, Emblem Law, 2001, Article 17.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Resolution on the Implementation of the 2001 Emblem Law (2002) states:
Ministries and institutions, local executive bodies (khukumats) have to undertake the required steps to prevent abuses of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems and appellations in trade-service marks, as well as in other purposes incompatible with the principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. 
Tajikistan, Resolution on the Implementation of the 2001 Emblem Law, 2002, Article 4.
Thailand
Thailand’s Military Penal Code (1911) provides for the punishment of “whoever uses red cross flag or red cross emblem in violation of the [1906 Geneva Convention]”. 
Thailand, Military Penal Code, 1911, Section 49.
Thailand
Thailand’s Red Cross Act (1956) provides:
Whoever, without being entitled according to the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or this Act, uses the Red Cross emblem or the Red Cross name shall be punished with imprisonment …
Whoever uses any emblem or wording imitating the Red Cross emblem or the Red Cross name, or resembling such emblem or name as may be inferred that it is so done in order to deceive the public, shall be punished with imprisonment …
Sections 9 [and] 10 … shall apply to the emblem of the red crescent on a white ground or of the red lion and sun on a white ground, and to the name “red crescent” or “red lion and sun”, mutatis mutandis. 
Thailand, Red Cross Act, 1956, Sections 9, 10 and 12.
Togo
Togo’s Code of Military Justice (1981) punishes “any individual who, [in time of war] in the area of operations, uses publicly and without being entitled to do so the armlet, flag or emblem of the Red Cross, or equivalent armlets, flags or emblems”. 
Togo, Code of Military Justice, 1981, Article 122.
Togo
Togo’s Emblem Law (1999) punishes:
whoever, without being entitled to do so, makes use of the emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent, of the words “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent”, of a distinctive signal or of any other sign, denomination or signal constituting an imitation thereof or capable of creating confusion, whatever the purpose of this use. 
Togo, Emblem Law, 1999, Article 15.
Tonga
Tonga’s Red Cross Society Act (1972) states:
It shall not be lawful for any person other than those authorised under section 5 of this Act or under the provisions of the … [1949] Geneva Conventions to use for any purpose whatever the emblem of the red cross on a white ground. 
Tonga, Red Cross Society Act, 1972, Section 9(1).
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago’s Red Cross Society Act (1963) punishes:
Any person not being a member of the [Red Cross] Society who -
wears or displays the emblem of the Red Cross on an article of clothing, badge, paper, or in any other way whatsoever, or any insignia coloured in imitation thereof in such a way as to be likely to deceive those to whom it is visible, for the purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of, or agent for the Society, or that he has been recognised by the Society as possessing any qualification for administering first aid or other treatment for the relief of sickness. 
Trinidad and Tobago, Red Cross Society Act, 1963, Section 8(b).
Tunisia
Tunisia’s Code of Military Justice (1957), as amended in 2001, punishes “any individual who, in the area of operations of a military force … publicly uses, without being entitled to do so, the armlet, flag or emblem of the Red Crescent or Red Cross, or equivalent armlets, flags or emblems”. 
Tunisia, Code of Military Justice, 1957, as amended in 2001, Article 127.
Turkmenistan
Turkmenistan’s Emblem Law (2001) provides:
Anyone who, wilfully and without entitlement, has used the red crescent or red cross emblem, the designation “Red Crescent” or “Red Cross”, a distinctive signal or any other sign, designation or signal which constitutes an imitation thereof or which might lead to confusion, shall be held responsible in accordance with the legislation of Turkmenistan. 
Turkmenistan, Emblem Law, 2001, Article 14.
Uganda
Under Uganda’s Emblems Order (1993), the emblems of the red cross or red crescent and the designations “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent” shall be for the exclusive use of:
1. The Uganda Red Cross Society.
2. The International Committee of the Red Cross (I.C.R.C.).
3. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
4. The Medical personnel of the Armed Forces and religious personnel attached to the Armed Forces. 
Uganda, Emblems Order, 1993, Section 2 and Schedule.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s Emblem Law (1999) provides:
The use of the emblem of the red cross or red crescent, or red cross and red crescent, of the names “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent”, or “Red Cross and Red Crescent”, of the distinctive sign or any other sign, name or signal constituting an imitation thereof … or capable of creating confusion, regardless of the purpose of such use, in violation of the provisions of the present law … are prohibited.
Persons having committed a breach of the Ukrainian legislation of the use and symbolic of the Red Cross and Red Crescent are liable to punishment in conformity with Ukrainian legislation. 
Ukraine, Emblem Law, 1999, Articles 15 and 17.
Ukraine
Pursuant to Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001), “carrying the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbols in an operational zone by persons not entitled to do so, as well as misuse of flags or signs of the Red Cross and Red Crescent or the colours attributed to medical vehicles in state of martial law” constitutes a war crime. 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Article 435; see also Article 445.
United Arab Emirates
The Law on the Red Crescent Society (2002) of the United Arab Emirates provides:
Anyone having used the emblem of the Red Crescent Society or the designation (Red Crescent) without authorization, and has committed an act that resulted in the death of an individual, shall be liable to a prison term not less than one year. The penalty shall be imprisonment if the act resulted in damages to the physical integrity or health of those who trusted the holder of the emblem or designation or believed he was carrying out humanitarian action. 
United Arab Emirates, Law on the Red Crescent Society, 2002, Article 25.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, provides that, “subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Secretary of State, to use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or, as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 6.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2009, states:
Use of Red Cross and other emblems.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the Secretary of State, to use for any purpose whatsoever any of the following … ; that is to say –
(a) the emblem of a red cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, or the designation “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross”;
(b) the emblem of a red crescent moon on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, or the designation “Red Crescent”;
(c) the following emblem in red on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground, that is to say, a lion passing from right to left of, and with its face turned towards, the observer, holding erect in its raised right forepaw a scimitar, with, appearing above the lion’s back, the upper half of the sun shooting forth rays, or the designation “Red Lion and Sun”.
(f) the emblem of a red frame in the shape of a square on edge on a white ground, conforming to the illustration in Article 1 of the Annex to the third protocol (and whether or not incorporating another emblem, or a combination of emblems, in accordance with Article 3 of the protocol), or the designation “Red Crystal” or “third Protocol emblem”. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended on 2 July 2009, Section 6(1)(a)–(c) and (f).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
United Republic of Tanzania
The United Republic of Tanzania’s Red Cross Society Act (1962) punishes:
Any person who, falsely or with intent to deceive or defraud, -
wears or displays the emblem of the Red Cross or any colourable imitation thereof for the purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of or an agent for the [Red Cross] Society or that he has been recognized by the Society as possessing any qualification for administering first-aid or other treatment for injury or sickness. 
United Republic of Tanzania, Red Cross Society Act, 1962, Section 7(b).
United States of America
The US Criminal Statute on the Protection of the Emblem (1905), as amended in 1910, states that the following are guilty of a criminal offence:
Whoever wears or displays the sign of the Red Cross or any insignia colored in imitation thereof for the fraudulent purpose of inducing the belief that he is a member of or an agent for the American National Red Cross; or
Whoever, whether a corporation, association or person, other than the American National Red Cross and its duly authorized employees and agents and the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of the United States, uses the emblem of the Greek red cross on a white ground, or any sign or insignia made or colored in imitation thereof or the words “Red Cross” or “Geneva Cross” or any combination of these words. 
United States, Criminal Statute on the Protection of the Emblem, 1905, as amended in 1910, Section 706.
United States of America
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(f) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c)(2).
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:
§ 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions
“ …
“(b) OFFENSES.—The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:
“ …
“(19) Improperly using a distinctive emblem.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally uses a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes in a manner prohibited by the law of war shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, p. 120 Stat. 2629, § 950v(b)(19).
United States of America
The US Military Commissions Act (2009) amends Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
§ 950t. Crimes triable by military commission
“The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:
“ …
“(19) IMPROPERLY USING A DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally uses a distinctive emblem recognized by the law of war for combatant purposes in a manner prohibited by the law of war shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 950t(19).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Emblem Decree (1992) states:
The red cross and red crescent emblems, as well as the words “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross” and “Red Crescent” may only be used for the purposes provided for in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977. 
Uruguay, Emblem Decree, 1992, Article 1.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
15. Making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the [1949] Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, resulting in death or serious personal injury. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.15.
Vanuatu
Vanuatu’s Geneva Conventions Act (1982) provides that “no person shall, without the consent in writing of the Minister, use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for, or as the case may be, understood as referring to, one of those emblems or designations. 
Vanuatu, Geneva Conventions Act, 1982, Section 11.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Emblem Law (1965) provides:
The emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the words “Red Cross” may not be used, in time of peace or in time of war, except to protect and designate the personnel and material of medical formations and of establishments of the Medical Service of the Army, Navy and Air Force, as well as of voluntary relief societies duly recognized by the National Red Cross Society and officially authorized to offer its assistance.
The use of any sign or denomination constituting an imitation of the emblem or the words “Red Cross” is prohibited.
Likewise, the use for any purpose … of similar emblems or words which could create confusion is prohibited. 
Venezuela, Emblem Law, 1965, Articles 1 and 4.
The Law further stipulates that all violations of those provisions must be punished. 
Venezuela, Emblem Law, 1965, Article 5.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Law on Red Cross Activities (2008) states:
Article 6 Prohibited Acts
7. Illegal use of the Emblem of the Red Cross. 
Viet Nam, Law on Red Cross Activities, 2008, Article 6(7).
The Law further states: “In time of armed conflict, the emblem can be used in compliance with the provisions of [the] relevant [1949] Geneva [C]onventions and [1977] Additional [P]rotocols to which Vietnam is a State member”. 
Viet Nam, Law on Red Cross Activities, 2008, Article 14.
Yemen
Yemen’s Emblem Law (1999) punishes:
any person who uses intentionally and without entitlement the emblem of the red crescent or red cross, or their denominations, or any other distinctive emblem or any other sign or denomination constituting an imitation thereof or which provokes confusion, whatever the purpose of the use. 
Yemen, Emblem Law, 1999, Article 10.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Emblem Law (1996) prohibits the wearing or use of the emblem of the red cross as a protective sign, during war, imminent danger of war or state of emergency, without being entitled to do so. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Emblem Law, 1996, Article 13.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “those who misuse or carry without permission … the Red Cross flag or corresponding emblems” commit a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 153(1); see also commentary on Article 148.
The commentary on the Code states:
The unauthorized carrying of an international emblem exists, for example, when a Red Cross emblem is carried by a person who is not a member of the medical corps (members of combat units) or, when such an emblem is placed, in general, on persons or objects not provided by international law regulations …
The misuse of international emblem is committed, as a rule, during a war or an armed conflict …
The aggravated form of this criminal act … exists when the misuse or unauthorized use of international emblems is committed in the war operations zone. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code as amended, 1976, commentary on Article 153.
Zambia
Zambia’s Red Cross Society Act (1966) states that “no person other than the [Red Cross] Society or a person so authorised under the [1949 Geneva] Conventions shall, without the authority of the Council, use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, as well as the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”. 
Zambia, Red Cross Society Act, 1966, Section 6(1).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1997, provides that, “subject to the provisions of this section and of section 7 of the Zimbabwe Red Cross Society Act, 1981, no person shall, without the authority in writing of the Minister of Health, use for any purpose whatsoever” the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun on a white ground, the heraldic emblem of Switzerland, the designations “Red Cross”, “Geneva Cross”, “Red Crescent” and “Red Lion and Sun”, as well as any design or wording so nearly resembling any of those emblems or designations as to be capable of being mistaken for or, as the case may be, understood as referring to one of those emblems or designations. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1997, Section 8.
Canada
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Colombia
In 1997, Colombia’s Council of State considered that the use of a medical vehicle for military operations was prohibited under IHL. The vehicles had been used to transport troops. The Council referred to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and to both 1977 Additional Protocols. 
Colombia, Council of State, Administrative Case No. 11369, Judgment, 6 February 1997.
Germany
In its judgment in the Emblem case in 1994, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice stated that there was an essential common interest in the protection of the emblems against unauthorized use. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Emblem case, Judgment, 23 June 1994.
Germany
In 2006, in the German Red Cross v. R.H. e.V. case, the Regional Court of Hamburg held:
32. The applicant enjoys the protection of Section 12 of the Civil Code for the emblem of the red cross … The protection of Section 12 of the Civil Code applies also to the red cross used by the applicant, which as an emblem has its basis in Articles 38, 44 and 53 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949 in conjunction with the implementing law of 21 August 1954 (Federal Law Gazette II 1954, 781). The provision of Section 12 of the Civil Code, which regulates the protection of the right to use a name, is applicable by analogy to the protection of the emblem of the red cross … By its use, to which the applicant has been entitled on the basis of letters of recognition by the Federal Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the applicant has acquired a material protective right to the emblem of the red cross according to Section 12 of the Civil Code. Unauthorized use of the emblem is prohibited by the provision on an administrative fine under Section 125 of the Law on Administrative Offences (see Federal Court of Justice, [judgement of 23 June 1994, “Emblem case”, with further references]).
46. The respondent’s objection of forfeiture … already cannot apply because there is an overriding public interest in the protection of the emblem of the red cross against unauthorized use, which outweighs the individual interests of the respondent. The emblem, as international protective sign, shall under all conditions of use at all times clearly and without doubt signify the function of those carrying it. Articles 53 and 54 of the Geneva Convention noted above accordingly obligate the States party to take the necessary measures to prevent and punish the unauthorized use of the emblem of the red cross and of all signs imitating it. 
Germany, Regional Court of Hamburg, German Red Cross v. R.H. e.V. case, Judgment, 27 April 2006, §§ 32 and 46.
Netherlands
In its judgment in the Red Cross Emblem case in 1979, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands held that the aim of the provision of the Criminal Code of the Netherlands prohibiting the use without prior authorization of the distinctive emblems was to prevent unauthorized persons from using the emblems. 
Netherlands, Supreme Court, Red Cross Emblem case, Judgment, 15 May 1979.
Norway
In its judgment in the Bogstadveien tannlegevak case in 2007, the District Court of Oslo ordered a dental clinic to pay a fine for the unlawful use of the red cross emblem. The Court noted that Norway had ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It then pointed out that the misuse of the emblem in time of peace could undermine respect for the emblem during armed conflict. 
Norway, District Court of Oslo, Bogstadveien tannlegevak case, Case No. 07-002291MED-OTIR/02, Judgment, 9 February 2007.
Norway
In its judgment in the AAAA Tøyen Tannlegevakt AS case in 2010, in which it allowed an appeal against a lower court’s finding that the logo of a private dental clinic could not “easily be confused” with the emblem of the Red Cross, Norway’s Supreme Court held:
20. … Within the framework of this criminal law provision’s wording, the obligations pursuant to the [Geneva] Convention [I] of 1949 must be assigned considerable weight.
21. When determining these obligations, the starting point must be that the Convention’s objective is to protect the sick and wounded in war. It is thus in war situations that the Red Cross emblem is primarily important. This starting point must be assigned significant importance when interpreting the expression “can be easily confused with”. The emblem must be recognisable and respected in war situations. It is therefore not enough to consider whether confusion may easily take place under normal conditions and close up. The impression that the logo will give at some distance and in relatively stressful situations must also be taken into consideration. In order for a logo not to be covered by the provision, confusion must not take place “easily” under such circumstances either. 
Norway, Supreme Court, AAAA Tøyen Tannlegevakt AS case, Judgment, 12 May 2010, §§ 20–21.
Facts :
A.
On 30 March 2000, A._SA obtained the registration of Swiss trade mark no. bbb from the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI[, from the French l'Institut Fédéral de la Propriété Intellectuelle) for medical care and medical-surgical services …
At the top right of the registered sign, the wording “a._s.a” is present. The trade mark registered with the IPI indicates that A._SA submitted a partial claim for protection in relation to colour when making the request to register the trade mark. For the main figurative element (in the centre), as well as the two smaller signs located on a vertical axis to this (above and below the main figurative element), protection of the colour vermillion red has been claimed for these. The beige colour used has been claimed for the sign at the bottom left, and the colour black for the one on the opposite side to this …
Since this registration, A._SA has used the figurative element … and the trade mark in the course of its normal business activities, in particular as a distinctive sign on its facades that is well-known in Geneva, as well as on its business documentation (in particular its letterhead and website).
In 2008, A._SA’s use of this trade mark was drawn to the attention of the Swiss Red Cross (Verein Schweizerisches Rotes Kreuzes) by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The Swiss Red Cross made repeated requests to A._SA to cease using all forms of the Red Cross emblem in its commercial activity and to request the cancellation of trade mark no bbb.
Despite several extrajudicial attempts, as well as a conciliation procedure, the parties were unable to reach an agreement to resolve the matter.
On 6 September 2010, A._SA obtained an extension of the duration of its trade mark registration by a period of ten years from 30 March 2010 until 30 March 2020.
B.
On 3 July 2012, the Swiss Red Cross, acting through its competent organs, filed a statement of its claim against A._SA with the Commercial Court of the Canton of Bern. …
The Commercial Court, in its judgment of 17 October 2013, ruled as follows:
A._SA requests that the decision be set aside …
The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed, notwithstanding costs and expenses.
Angola
The Report on the Practice of Angola notes that, according to witnesses, vehicles, uniforms and the red cross emblem were used by União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) forces when fleeing from attacks by governmental troops. It adds that, given the numerous reports of theft of vehicles of humanitarian organizations, incidents involving the improper use of the emblems had probably occurred many times during the conflict. 
Report on the Practice of Angola, 1998, Chapter 2.5.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina made an urgent appeal “to respect the Red Cross emblem which ought to be used by medical personnel, hospitals and medical transports only”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Appeal of the Presidency concerning the International Committee of the Red Cross Operations, Pale, 7 June 1992.
Burundi
In 2010, within the context of a Training Workshop on Military Criminal Law for Military Judges, the Ministry of National Defence and Former Combatants stated:
The CPM [Military Penal Code (1980)], in article 60, punishes … any person who, in the area of operations of a unit [and] in violation of the laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by international conventions to ensure the respect for persons, objects and places protected by these conventions.
The distinctive signs concerned are:
- The red cross on a white ground for the medical service and religious personnel. 
Burundi, Ministry of National Defence and Former Combatants, Training Workshop on Military Criminal Law for Military Judges, November 2010, p. 16.
China
According to the Report on the Practice of China, it is China’s opinion that unauthorized use of the ICRC emblem is not acceptable. 
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 2.5.
Colombia
In a press release issued in 1996, Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed concern about the alleged misuse of the emblem. It reiterated its commitment to respect the relevant provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. 
Colombia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Press Release, 26 August 1996.
Colombia
In a 1996 study, Colombia’s Presidential Council for Human Rights underlined the importance for a newly developed manual for the armed forces to include provisions such as the following: “Penal or disciplinary sanctions shall be established [and] imposed on members of the public forces for the improper use of the emblem of the Red Cross.” 
Colombia, Presidential Council for Human Rights, Investigación académica sobre medidas nacionales de aplicación del Derecho Internacional Humanitario, 1996, p. 55, Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 2.8.
Djibouti
In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, under the heading “Basic rules of IHL” and in a section on “Weapons and tactics”, stated: “It is prohibited to misuse the emblem of the red cross/red crescent/red crystal.ˮ 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 194.
France
The instructions given to the French armed forces for the conduct of Opération Mistral, simulating a military operation under the right of self-defence or a mandate of the UN Security Council, state: “Any unlawful use of [the red cross or red crescent] is prohibited and must be punished.” 
France, Etat-major de la Force d’Action Rapide, Ordres pour l’Opération Mistral, 1995, § 62.
Germany
Official documents of the German military authorities stress that military buses bearing the distinctive emblem may – even in peace time – only be used for medical purposes. That is to say, transports of soldiers in such buses may only be undertaken if the transport has a “medical component”. All other transports are forbidden. According to the Report on the Practice of Germany, one document states that, before discarding vehicles displaying the emblem, the emblem must be made invisible or erased to prevent any misuse of the discarded vehicle. 
Report on the Practice of Germany, 1997, Chapter 2.5. (The report does not quote any source.)
Iraq
On the basis of the reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that improper use of the distinctive emblems is prohibited under international law. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.5.
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private security and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated: “International humanitarian law also limits the conduct of military operations permissible under international law. … Certain methods such as perfidiousness or the abuse of the red cross emblem are excluded.” 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.1, pp. 45–46.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Emblems (distinctive sign)
In Armed conflicts recognisable emblems serve above all to protect military and civilian medical installations as well as the buildings of national relief organisations and their personnel from attack (protective function). This protection is guaranteed not by the emblems themselves but is based directly in international law.
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognise the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the … Red Lion and Sun (abandoned in 1980) as emblems. The Red Crystal was recognised as an additional emblem in 2005 for use by all States that for religious or other reasons do not wish to make use of the original emblems.
Other emblems with a protective function include the white flag for Combatants who wish to parley or surrender, and a blue triangle on an orange ground, as the emblem of Civil defence. Improper use of these emblems is prohibited by law. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 18–19.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
A training video on IHL produced by the UK Ministry of Defence illustrates the rule that the false use of emblems is forbidden. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Training Video: The Geneva Conventions, 1986, Report on UK Practice, 1997, Chapter 2.4.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
On the basis of a letter from the British Red Cross, the Report on UK Practice notes that, since 1988, four cases have been initiated in the United Kingdom “regarding the use of designs resembling the red cross emblem” and stresses that “unauthorised use of such emblems is prohibited at all times within UK territory, regardless of the nature of a particular conflict”. 
Report on UK Practice, 1997, Letter from the British Red Cross, 8 October 1997, Chapter 2.5.
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: that “we support the principle … that internationally recognized protective emblems, such as the red cross, not be improperly used.” 
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 University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 425.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
According to the Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the 1991 Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles extended the prohibition of improper use of the distinctive emblem to internal conflicts and can thus be considered as the opinio juris of the six republics of the former Yugoslavia on the applicability of the rule in internal armed conflicts. According to the report, during the armed conflicts in Slovenia and Croatia, which involved the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA), the distinctive emblem was flagrantly misused. The YPA did not deny these practices and actually admitted two such cases during the conflict in Slovenia. The first case involved the transport of YPA personnel released from prison in Slovenia carrying their personal weapons with them. The second case involved the transport of members of the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Slovenia for negotiations with the Slovenian authorities. 
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 2.5.
UN Secretary-General
In 1970, in a report on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN Secretary-General stated:
As was felt by the experts convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1969, the prohibition of the improper use … of the Red Cross emblem, contained in article 23(f) [of the 1907 Hague Regulations], should be strongly reaffirmed. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, UN Doc. A/8052, 2 March 1970, § 102.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In 1981, in a report on refugees from El Salvador, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly recalled that the ICRC had mounted a campaign in El Salvador to promote the application of IHL after it had noted a number of violations, including misuse of the red cross emblem. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on refugees from El Salvador, Doc. 4698, 7 April 1981, p. 10.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1988 on the protection of humanitarian medical missions, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly urged medical missions to refrain from using the red cross emblem for non-medical activities, whether in international or non-international armed conflicts. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 904, 30 June 1988, § 9.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (SFOR)
In 1997, an incident occurred involving misuse of the distinctive emblem, when SFOR soldiers used a package marked with a red cross to gain entry to a hospital to arrest a person indicted by the ICTY. 
The Independent, Press clippings on the arrest of persons accused of war crimes, London, 11 July 1997.
The SFOR spokesman initially denied that the soldiers had abused the symbol of the red cross, but later admitted that the soldiers had carried a parcel with the red cross label. He indicated, however, that the soldiers had not gained access to the hospital “in disguise or by subterfuge” and that they were armed and dressed as SFOR soldiers. He added that the ICRC was not involved in the operation. 
NATO, Transcript: Joint Press Conference at the Coalition Press Information Centre Holiday Inn, Sarajevo, 11 July 1997; Joint Press Conference, 14 July 1997.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1977)
The 23rd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1977 adopted a resolution on misuse of the emblem of the red cross inviting States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions to “enforce effectively the existing national legislation repressing the abuses of the emblem of the red cross, red crescent, red lion and sun, to enact such legislation wherever it does not exist at present and to provide for punishment by way of adequate sentences for offenders”. 
23rd International Conference of the Red Cross, Bucharest, 15–21 October 1977, Res. XI.
CSCE Helsinki Summit (1992)
In 1992, at the Helsinki Summit of Heads of State or Government, CSCE participating States reaffirmed their commitment to prevent misuse of the protective emblems of the red cross and red crescent. 
CSCE, Helsinki Summit of Heads of State or Government, 9–10 July 1992, Helsinki Document 1992: The Challenges of Change, Decisions, Chapter VI: The Human Dimension, § 51.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In a report in 1979, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights considered that the Nicaraguan Government was responsible for the improper use of the red cross emblem. The Commission had been informed that:
Public Health and the Vélez Páiz Hospital in Managua [had] ambulances that [had] a painted Red Cross emblem, and that in the barrio OPEN No. 3, government ambulances with the Red Cross were used to transport soldiers, thus creating suspicion and confusion in the population with respect to the Red Cross. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the situation of human rights in Nicaragua, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.45 Doc. 16 rev. 1, 17 November 1979, pp. 43 and 77.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “It is prohibited to make improper use (that is to mark other persons and objects than those entitled to) of … the distinctive signs and signals of [the] medical service”. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 407(a).
ICRC
In 1987, in response to press reports of the use of a helicopter displaying the distinctive emblem by the contras in Nicaragua to transport military equipment, the ICRC issued a communiqué recalling:
The red cross emblem must be used in conflicts by medical services of armed forces exclusively to protect the wounded and sick and those caring for them. Any other use of the emblem not only violates the rules in force, but above all can result in the wounded and sick being deprived of the humanitarian aid they are entitled to. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 87/19/MMR, Use of the Red Cross Emblem, 17 June 1987.
ICRC
In a press release in 1991, the ICRC urged the parties to the conflict in Yugoslavia to comply with the rules relative to the use of the red cross and red crescent emblems and to repress any misuse. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1673, ICRC appeals for respect for international humanitarian law in Yugoslavia, 2 July 1991.
National Society (Croatia)
In 1991, the Croatian Red Cross denounced the transport of military personnel and weapons by the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) in vehicles and helicopters marked with the distinctive emblem. 
Croatian Red Cross, Appeal, 16 September 1991.
Council of Delegates (1991)
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the use of the emblem by National Societies in which it invited “National Societies to assist their governments in meeting their obligations under the Geneva Conventions with regard to the emblem, in particular to prevent its misuse”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 5, § 4.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1992 in the context of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICRC reminded all parties to the conflict that “the abuse of the emblem is a breach of International Humanitarian Law”. 
ICRC, Press Release, ICRC denies allegations, ICRC Belgrade, 22 May 1992.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia not to abuse the red cross or red crescent emblem. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “All improper use of the red cross emblem is prohibited and must be punished.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § III, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 504.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated: “Any abuse of the emblem of the Red Cross is prohibited and shall be punished.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § III, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1309.
National Society (Colombia)
In 1996, following allegations that a Red Cross ambulance had transported tear gas grenades, the Colombian Red Cross denied that it owned the vehicle and recalled that the use of Red Cross vehicles to transport arms or armed troops was forbidden. 
Colombian Red Cross, Press Release, 24 August 1996.
ICRC
The 1996 ICRC Model Law concerning the Use and Protection of the Emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent provides:
Anyone who, wilfully and without entitlement, has made use of the emblem of the red cross or red crescent, the words “Red Cross” or “Red Crescent”, a distinctive signal or any other sign, designation or signal which constitutes an imitation thereof or which might lead to confusion, irrespective of the aim of such use;
anyone who, in particular, has displayed the said emblem or words on signs, posters, announcements, leaflets or commercial documents, or has affixed them to goods or packaging, or has sold, offered for sale or placed in circulation goods thus marked;
shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of … (days or months) and/or by payment of a fine of … (amount in local currency).
If the offence is committed in the management of a corporate body (commercial firm, association, etc.), the punishment shall apply to the persons who committed the offence or ordered the offence to be committed. 
ICRC, Model Law concerning the Use and Protection of the Emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent, Article 10, IRRC, No. 313, 1996, p. 492.
ICRC
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included the “improper use of … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions”, when committed in an international armed conflict, in its list of war crimes to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, § 2(x).
ICRC
In 1997, the ICRC expressed concern about misuse of the distinctive emblem following an incident in which SFOR soldiers used a package marked with the red cross to gain entry to a hospital to arrest a person indicted by the ICTY. 
The Independent, Press clippings on the arrest of persons accused of war crimes, London, 11 July 1997.
The ICRC stated that it objected “to any organization using the Red Cross in a manner which jeopardizes the neutrality and independence of the Red Cross movement”. 
ICRC, Information to the Press, ICRC Sarajevo, 11 July 1997.
After SFOR admitted the use of the emblem, the ICRC reiterated its concerns and urged SFOR to “ensure all necessary measures to prevent any further such misrepresentation from occurring”. 
ICRC, Information to the Press, ICRC Sarajevo, 12 July 1997.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 2000 in connection with the hostilities in the Near East, the ICRC emphasized: “Any misuse of the emblems protecting the medical services is a violation of international humanitarian law and puts the personnel working under those emblems at risk.” It called on all persons involved in violence “to refrain from misuse of the protective emblems and … on all the authorities concerned to prevent or repress such practices”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 00/42, Appeal to all involved in violence in the Near East, 21 November 2000.
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A)
The Report on SPLM/A Practice notes that no instances have been found in which the SPLA has used the distinctive emblem improperly. It concluded that: “Without evidence to the contrary, the practice of the SPLM/A is that it does not engage in the improper use of the protective emblem.” 
Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 2.5.