Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy

Note: For practice concerning the use of flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not party to the conflict which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 63.
Additional Protocol I
Article 37(1)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I lists “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict” as an act of perfidy. 
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 37(1)(d). Article 37 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Additional Protocol I
Under Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37, … of … protective signs recognized by the Conventions or this Protocol” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. Article 85(5) adds: “Without prejudice to the application of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes”. 
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 85(3)(f) and (5). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
San Remo Manual
Paragraph 111(a) of the 1994 San Remo Manual states: “Perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning … neutral … status.” 
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, § 111(a).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states that “making use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral states or other states which are not parties to the conflict, so as to simulate a protected status” is an example of perfidy. 
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, § 1.05(2)(4).
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states:
Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of:
(d) protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other States not involved in the conflict. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 826(d) (naval warfare) and § 902(d) (land warfare).
In a section entitled “Perfidy”, the manual further states:
It is illegal to use in battle emblems, markings or clothing of a neutral or enemy. Combatants wearing civilian clothing or otherwise pretending to be a member of a neutral nation violate LOAC and diminish the enemy’s ability to identify neutrals and distinguish civilians. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 507.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other states not involved in the conflict.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(d).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other states not involved in the conflict”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.3.
The manual also states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include “the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal and other Red Cross societies, or of other protective signs recognised by the Conventions or the Protocol”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.26.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “opening fire wearing the uniform … of neutral forces” is an act of perfidy. 
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. 32.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) lists “feigning to have protected status by utilizing the signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States” as an example of “perfidy”. 
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. 95.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) notes that “feigning to have a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral States or States not parties to the conflict” is an example of perfidy. 
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, pp. 63 and 64, § 234.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “feigning having protected status by using the signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States or other States not parties to the conflict” constitutes an act of perfidy. 
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 183, § 494.A.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other states not parties to the conflict.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(d) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(d) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(e) (naval warfare).
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other states not parties to the conflict.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.d (land warfare), 706.2.d (air warfare) and 857.2.e (naval warfare).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
I.2.1. Perfidy
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. …
Here are some examples of perfidy; if an act of hostility is made by feigning:
d. protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. 
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. 48.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that the use of the emblems or uniforms of third States for hostile purposes is criminalized. 
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. 115.
Greece
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the misuse of … the uniform and insignia of other states” constitutes perfidy. 
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 5, § 4.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: feigning to possess a protected position by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of States which are not parties to the conflict”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-2.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I] lists a number of examples of acts of perfidy:
- the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of States not parties to the conflict. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0414.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “The following acts are examples of perfidy: … the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 502(5) (land warfare) and § 713(2) (naval warfare).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) gives the following example of “perjury” (perfidy): “feigning protection status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of a neutral [state] or state not being a party to the conflict”. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(e).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States” is an example of perfidy. 
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.(9).(e).
In the context of armed conflict at sea, the manual states: “Perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning: … neutral … status.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 135.c.(1).
The manual also prohibits the following acts as being perfidious: “Carrying out hostile operations of any kind, even aerial reconnaissance, under cover of aircraft registration numbers or markings belonging to neutral countries”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 165.b.(2).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States” is an example of perfidy. 
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)(2)(e), p. 239.
In the context of armed conflict at sea, the manual states: “Perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning: … neutral … status.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 126(c)(1), p. 319.
The manual also prohibits the following acts as being perfidious: “Carrying out hostile operations of any kind, even aerial reconnaissance, under cover of aircraft registration numbers or markings belonging to neutral countries”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 156(b)(2), p. 339.
Romania
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning the status of a protected person by abusing the signs and emblems of … neutral States or States which are not party to the conflict” is an act of perfidy. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 35.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
When planning and conducting combat operations it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between perfidy and ruses of war. Perfidy means committing a hostile act under the cover of a right to protection by feigning: … a protected status by the use of emblems, signs and signals, or uniforms … of neutral or other states not parties to the armed conflict. 
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, § 8.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that “simulating possession of a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral States or other States which are not Parties to the conflict” is an example of perfidy. 
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.(1); see also § 5.3.c.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) prohibits the act of perfidy and states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict” is an example of such an act. 
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); see also §§ 3.3.b.(1).(d) and 5.3.c.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers as an example of perfidious conduct “the feigning of protected status … of a member of the armed forces of a neutral state”. 
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.b, p. 29.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) prohibits perfidy. Thus, “it is notably forbidden … to abuse a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of nations not involved in the conflict”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 39.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
15.2 Prohibited methods of warfare
224 Wearing enemy uniforms or feigning protected status by using the insignia, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral States or States that are not party to the conflict is prohibited. 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 224.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that an example of perfidy is “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other States not Parties to the international armed conflict”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.2.44.
The manual further states: “Perfidious use of distinctive emblems (insignia or signals) of persons and objects protected by the laws of war shall constitute serious [violations of international humanitarian law].” 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.7.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
According to the UK LOAC Manual (2004), “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict” is an example of prohibited perfidy “if done with intent to betray the enemy’s confidence”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.9.2.
In its chapter on air operations, the manual states:
Article 19 of the Hague Rules 1923 prohibited the use of false external marks on aircraft. Additional Protocol I now prohibits the use at any time by any party to a conflict of the flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other states not party to the conflict. The use of flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms of an adverse party is prohibited “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour or impede military operations”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.10.4.
The manual further states: “Military and auxiliary aircraft are prohibited at all times from feigning exempt, civilian or neutral status.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 12.54–12.54.1.
United States of America
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, states: “One may commit an act of treachery or perfidy by, for example, … feigning a protected status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of … a neutral State or a State not party to the conflict”. 
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(17)(c)(4), p. IV-15.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that feigning a protected status by the use of symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of neutral States or other States not parties to the conflict is an act of perfidy. 
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, § 104(3).
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act (1995).
Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), in an article entitled “Perfidy”, imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, with intent to harm or attack the adversary, … uses improperly … flags or uniforms of neutral States”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 143.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes “any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach”. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).
It adds that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 37(1), is also a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:
Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).
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 two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
2. Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977] First [Additional] Protocol
(1) A person of whatever nationality commits an offence if that person, whether within or outside Sierra Leone commits, aids, abets or procures any other person to commit a grave breach specified in-
(e) … paragraph … 3 … of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on, inter alia, the grave breach of the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37 of the Protocol, of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other protective signs recognized by the Conventions or the Protocol]. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 2(1)(e).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses … in a perfidious manner the flag, uniform, insignia or distinctive emblem of neutral States … or of other States which are not parties to the conflict”. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 612(5).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
ICRC
The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols states:
The perfidious use … of emblems, signs, signals or uniforms referred to in Article 37 … of the Protocol [among which the signs, emblems or uniforms of neutral States or other States not parties to the conflict], for the purpose of killing, injuring or capturing an adversary, constitutes a grave breach under [Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 3499.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “to pretend having protected status by the use of flags, emblems or uniforms … of neutral States” is an act of perfidy. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 409(e).
Delegates also teach that “the perfidious use of the … distinctive signs marking specifically protected persons and objects … [and of] other protected signs recognized by the law of war” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 779(a) and (b).
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 perfidious use of the … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law”, 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, § 1(b)(vi).
No data.