Practice Relating to Rule 87. Humane Treatment

Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; 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 3; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 3.
Additional Protocol I
Article 75(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances. 
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 75(1). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.
Additional Protocol II
Article 4(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
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 4(1). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Article 5 of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides: “Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being.” 
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the Eighteenth Ordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Nairobi, 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev.5, Article 5.
Kampala Convention
Article 3(1)(d) of the 2009 Kampala Convention establishes an obligation for States Parties to “respect and ensure respect and protection of human rights of internally displaced persons, including humane treatment”. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 3(1)(d).
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 4 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 75(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 4.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under Paragraph 1 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the parties committed themselves to respect and ensure respect for common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 75(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, § 1.
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 4(1) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides: “Persons hors de combat and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities … shall be … treated humanely.” 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part IV, Article 4(1).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 7.1 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides:
Persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations, including civilians, members of armed forces who have laid down their weapons and persons placed hors de combat by reason of sickness, wounds or detention, shall, in all circumstances, be treated humanely. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 7.1.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraph 10 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provides:
Victims should be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity and human rights, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure their safety, physical and psychological well-being and privacy, as well as those of their families. The State should ensure that its domestic laws, to the extent possible, provide that a victim who has suffered violence or trauma should benefit from special consideration and care to avoid his or her re-traumatization in the course of legal and administrative procedures designed to provide justice and reparation. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, § 10.
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses
Paragraph 8 of the 2005 Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses declares the commitment of UN Member States to “the development and maintenance of fair and efficient criminal justice institutions, including the humane treatment of all those in pretrial and correctional facilities, in accordance with applicable international standards.” 
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/177 of 16 December 2005, § 8.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) incorporates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and, in respect of occupied territories, states that protected persons “shall be treated, at all times, with humanity”. 
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, §§ 8.001 and 4.010.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) considers that, in the course of armed conflicts not of an international character, “all persons who do not directly participate in the hostilities shall be treated with humanity in all circumstances”. 
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, § 7.04.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “The general rule is that persons are to be treated humanely.” It also states: “An obligation is imposed on all parties to deal humanely with protected persons.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 945 and 953.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “All persons are to be treated humanely in all circumstances.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.45.
The manual further states: “An obligation is imposed on all parties to deal humanely with protected persons.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.58.
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, with reference to common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, that in internal armed conflicts, “persons who do not take a direct part in hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and persons placed hors de combat, must be treated humanely”. 
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. 17 and Chapter IX, § 2.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that all persons hors de combat and who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall be treated humanely. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 4 and Fascicule III, p. 4.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(1).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “Treat humanely all enemies who are in your hands.” 
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. 26.
The Regulations further states:
Persons hors de combat and those who do not directly participate in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and their physical and psychological integrity. These persons must in all circumstances be protected and treated with humanity. 
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. 31; see also Part I bis, p. 80.
The Regulations also states: “The following acts constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their [Additional] Protocols: … intentionally causing great suffering or inflicting serious injury to body or health; … inhuman or degrading treatment which gives rise to outrages upon personal dignity”. 
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. 115; see also Part I bis, p. 26.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 31.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all regular combatants hors de combat”. 
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, § 421(1).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that members of the armed forces are obliged “to treat humanely … all regular combatants hors de combat”. 
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. 256, § 612.
The manual, in a section entitled “Safeguarding the enemy hors de combat”, also states: “The fundamental principle consists of preserving the human dignity of each victim of war in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.” 
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. 105, § 372; see also p. 149, § 432.
The manual, under the heading “Responsibility for Acts or Omissions of Which Subordinates Are Accused”, further states that a commander may be held responsible for any “inhuman treatment” committed by his subordinates. 
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. 99, § 36; see also p. 141, § 421.
The manual also states:
The following acts constitute grave breaches [of IHL]:
a) … inhuman treatment;
b) intentionally causing great suffering or grave infringements of physical or psychological integrity;
c) inhuman or degrading practices which result in outrages upon personal dignity. 
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. 295, § 661.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 31: Humanitarian rules
Every soldier must:
- treat humanely, without distinction, all persons placed hors de combat. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 31.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] provides that all persons in the power of a party to the conflict are entitled to at least a minimum humane treatment.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-7, § 63.
With regard to non-international armed conflicts, the manual incorporates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-2, § 10(a).
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states:
Persons rendered hors de combat (out of combat) and those not directly participating in hostilities shall be respected, protected and treated humanely. This principle specifies three duties towards the victims of war: to respect them, protect them and treat them humanely. These three requirements constitute a harmonious whole. To understand what they imply requires only common sense and good faith. It is the minimum treatment, which must be accorded to allow the individual to lead an acceptable existence. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 203.9.
In its chapter on the treatment of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power and, more specifically, in a section entitled “Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories”, the manual states:
The person, honour, family rights, religious conventions and practices, and manners and customs of protected persons must in all circumstances be respected.
They must be humanely treated and protected against all acts or threats of violence, and against insults and public curiosity. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1118.
In the same chapter, in a section entitled “Additional Protocol I”, the manual further states:
[Additional Protocol I] provides that all persons in the power of a party to the conflict are entitled to at least a minimum of humane treatment without adverse discrimination on grounds of race, gender, language, religion, political discrimination or similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1135.1.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
By Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, gender, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “Soldiers must: … protect [civilians] … against ill-treatment”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section III.
In Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders), the manual also states:
Persons who are hors de combat or not directly taking part in the hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. Such persons must under all circumstances be protected and treated humanely. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Fundamental Rules, § 1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states:
In accordance with the international conventions signed or approved by the Central African Government, it is stipulated that during combat servicemen must: … treat all persons hors de combat humanely. 
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(10).
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) requires soldiers to “give humane treatment to all … enemies in your power”. 
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. 26; see also p. 47.
Colombia
Colombia’s Circular on Fundamental Rules of IHL (1992) provides that “persons hors de combat and who do not participate directly in hostilities … shall be protected and treated in all circumstances with humanity”. 
Colombia, Transcripción Normas Fundamentales del Derecho Humanitario Aplicables en los Conflictos Armados, Circular No. 033/DIPL-SERPO-526, Policía Nacional, Dirección General, Santafé de Bogotá, 14 May 1992, § 1.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) provides that humane treatment is one of the fundamental aspects of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 42.
It states: “In Colombia’s application of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II], the State demonstrates that it respects the fundamental guarantees of humane treatment of persons not participating directly in hostilities”. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 43.
Colombia
Colombia’s Soldiers’ Manual and Instructors’ Manual (1999) underline the importance of humane treatment of the enemy. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – 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. 12; 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. 22.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in book III, volume 1 (instruction of first-year trainee officers):
II. The fundamental principles of IHL
Just as military operations are based on principles concerning attack, defence, withdrawal, etc., the law of armed conflicts contains a set of well-defined principles. These concrete principles reflect the realities of conflicts. They represent a balance between the principle of humanity and military necessity, and they are valid at all times, in all places, and in all circumstances. It is essential that these rules are known by all combatants. They must permanently be taken into consideration in every activity of assessment, planning, and military training or operation. The following principles can be found throughout the texts of the law of armed conflicts.
II.6. Humane treatment and non-discrimination
All persons must be treated humanely …Persons hors de combat, such as surrendering combatants, combatants in situations of distress – men parachuting from a downed plane, wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons, prisoners of war and other persons captured and detained – must be identified as such and treated humanely. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 12 and 14; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 13–14 and 24.
Croatia
Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993) instructs soldiers to treat humanely and show respect for persons and their property. 
Croatia, Instructions “Basic Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1993, §§ 1–3.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states that soldiers “must … respect the dignity of defeated enemies”. 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 26.
The Regulations also states: “Combatants must … treat all persons placed hors de combat with humanity”. 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 30(2).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “Persons who do not directly participate in hostilities must in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
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. 31; see also p. 39.
The manual also states that the following “are currently considered as war crimes … if committed against any person not or no longer participating in hostilities: … wilfully causing great suffering … or serious injury to body or health”. 
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, pp. 50–51.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) requires that all persons in the power of a party, whether combatants or civilians, be treated humanely, according to the laws of war. 
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, pp. 6 and 7.
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis.
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides that persons hors de combat shall be treated humanely. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, §§ 2.1 and 3.2.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides: “Combatants placed hors de combat, certain categories of military personnel, as well as the entire civilian population, must be particularly protected and treated with humanity.” 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, pp. 4 and 5.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states that combatants must be treated humanely. 
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, § 704.
Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “Members of the armed forces should: … Treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 14(b).
Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Enemy combatants who surrender”, states: “Treat them humanely.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 5; see also p. 15.
Guinea
Guinea’s Disciplinary Regulations (2012) states: “In accordance with the international agreements signed by the government of Guinea, military personnel in combat are required … to treat humanely, without distinction, all persons placed hors de combat”. 
Guinea, Règlement de Service dans les Forces Armées, Volume 1: Règlement de Discipline Générale (Service Regulations in the Armed Forces, Volume 1: General Discipline Regulations), 2012 edition, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, approved by Presidential Decree No. D 293/PRG/SGG/2012, 6 December 2012, Article 12(a).
India
India’s Army Training Note (1995) orders troops not to “ill treat any one, and in particular, women and children”. 
India, Army Training Note, Chief of Staff, Army Training Command, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1995, p. 4/24, § 10.
Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that as a general policy, all individuals falling in the power of a party to a conflict should, at a minimum, be treated in accordance with the principles of humanity. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 5.6, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 12.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Even in wartime, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] shall act humanely, as part of Israel’s heritage as a Jewish and democratic state and a member of the family of civilized nations.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 49.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) instructs: “Treat everyone humanely.” 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 250.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “Persons not involved in the fighting because they are not taking part in hostilities, or because they are wounded or have surrendered, or have been detained, must be treated humanely.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, pp. 5–6; see also Précis No. 3, p. 14.
Madagascar
According to Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994), one of the seven fundamental rules of IHL is that “persons placed hors de combat and who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall, in all circumstances, be protected and treated with humanity”. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 91, Rule 1.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that “the refusal to treat with humanity all persons hors de combat” is a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “The States party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions undertake to: … respect human beings and their person, their honour, their dignity.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 80(B).
The manual also states that Article 3 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions “stipulates that in the event of armed conflict, protected persons must be treated humanely in all circumstances”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 79; see also §§ 85(A) and 107.
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states regarding enemies who surrender: “Disarm them and treat them humanely.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(n).
In the same section, the Guidelines also states: “Treat all those who do not take part in the hostilities humanely, particularly women, children and persons displaced from their homes.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(w).
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all regular combatants hors de combat”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(1).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that protected persons shall be treated humanely. With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states that persons protected by common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. VIII-2 and XI-1.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides for the punishment of “a war law violation which contains inhuman treatment”. 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-44.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “the humanitarian law of war” limits “military force in order to avoid inhumane use of violence and unnecessary suffering”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0118.
The manual lists “humane conduct” as one of five “generally accepted principles of the humanitarian law of war”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0221 and 0223; see also § 0405, p. 39 and § 1028.
The manual states:
0224. Humane conduct
People who are outside the conflict or no longer able to take part in battle should be protected and humanely treated. The humane treatment of persons is not only a principle of the humanitarian law of war, but also of humanitarian law in general. This means that the principle is not only developed in the humanitarian law of war, but also, for example, in human rights conventions, the law of refugees and other areas of law. A number of standards deriving from human rights conventions or refugee law thus also apply during armed conflicts, especially internal armed conflict or occupation.
d. The individual is entitled to respect for his life, physical, mental and moral integrity and whatever is inseparable from his personality. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0224.
In its chapter on methods and means of warfare, the manual states that “[t]he question whether a non-lethal weapon can be used as a form of warfare will primarily depend on whether such a weapon”, inter alia, “does not conflict with the [principle] of humane treatment”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0477.
In its chapter on the protection of the civilian population, the manual states: “Protected persons must be humanely treated in all circumstances.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0809.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Article 4 of AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II], contain a number of fundamental guarantees of humane treatment that relate to all who are not participating directly in the hostilities, or have ceased to do so. Primarily this means civilians, but also members of the armed forces, dissident militias and armed groups who, due to wounds, sickness or capture, are no longer taking part in the combat or have been placed hors de combat. They must be treated without any negative discrimination on any grounds whatsoever. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1049.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states that the use of methods and means which “violate the principles of humanitarian treatment” must be avoided. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1216.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Protected persons must be humanely treated at all times.” It qualifies “inhuman treatment of protected persons” as a grave breach. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual , DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1137 and 1812.
The manual also states that, in non-international armed conflicts, persons protected by common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1807(1).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996) reproduces common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Nicaragua, Manual de Comportamiento y Proceder de las Unidades Militares y de los Miembros del Ejército de Nicaragua en Tiempo de Paz, Conflictos Armados, Situaciones Irregulares o Desastres Naturales, Ejército de Nicaragua, Estado Mayor General, Asesoría Jurídica del Nicaragua, 1996, Articles 6 and 14.
Peru
In Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Security Forces (1991), respect for the integrity of persons and their human dignity is one of the ten basic rules. 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, Rule 3.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “All persons placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the hostilities must be treated humanely. This means that they must be cared for and can never be attacked; they must be defended and assisted.”  
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 84.b; see also §§ 32.d and 83.a.
The manual contains a similar provision with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Persons placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the hostilities must be treated humanely. This means that they must be cared for and can never be attacked; they must be defended and assisted.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 75(b), p. 274; see also § 33(d), p. 251.
The manual contains a similar provision with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons who are not directly participating in hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 72(a), p. 270.
In a section on the relationship between IHL and human rights law, the manual states:
There are … principles common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions and human rights law which represent a minimum level of protection to which every human person is entitled … [including] [r]espect for life, physical and mental integrity … [and] each individual’s right to security of the person.
Regarding these fundamental guarantees, there is no exception whatsoever and they are binding both in times of peace and in times of armed conflict. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 26, pp. 41–42.
In a section on the human rights obligations of the security forces, the manual further states: “Respect the integrity of individuals and human dignity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 102(b), p. 136.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) provides: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall treat suspects and enemies who are out of combat … humanely and with respect.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2a(3).
Romania
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that it is one of the fundamental principles and rules of IHL that “persons hors de combat (e.g. those who surrender or the wounded) and those not taking a direct part in hostilities … shall be protected and treated humanely”. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 32.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that war victims “shall be granted such a status that would guarantee humane treatment”. 
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, § 7.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Under any circumstances international humanitarian law ensures humane treatment during an armed conflict of persons not directly involved in combat operations, including those who have been rendered hors de combat by sickness, injury, detention or any other cause without adverse distinction for reasons of race, colour, faith, birth, wealth or any other similar criteria. 
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, § 4.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
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, § 81.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) instructs combatants to “treat humanely … all persons hors de combat”. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(1).
Senegal
Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) restates common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Senegal, Le DIH adapté au contexte des opérations de maintien de l’ordre, République du Sénégal, Ministère des Forces Armées, Haut Commandement de la Gendarmerie et Direction de la Justice Militaire, Cabinet, 1999, p. 4.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Treat civilians and enemies in your power with humanity.” 
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. 34.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that “all those who are not entitled to a status affording them special or general protection or more favourable treatment have the right to be treated humanely”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 1.4.
The manual also states: “Treat all … enemies in your power with humanity”. 
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, § 10.3.e.(1).
The manual further states that the “duties of medical personnel, as established by the law of armed conflict” include: “treat all persons hors de combat humanely”. 
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, § 9.2.a.(2).(a).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the fundamental guarantees for persons in the power of one party to the conflict as contained in Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are a 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.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “Foreigners of enemy nationality who are in the territory of one of the parties to the conflict or in occupied territory must in all cases be treated humanely.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 146.
The manual adds that the 1977 Additional Protocol II and common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions are applicable during internal armed conflicts and contain “some minimal guarantees for persons involved in the conflict”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 4.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states:
Rule 2
I spare persons that surrender or are hors de combat. I can therefore also expect the enemy to treat me humanely.
Rule 5
I treat people that fall into my hands humanely. I disarm them and hand them over to my superior. They have to be protected from any kind of attack. 
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 2 and 5.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that all persons hors de combat and who do not take a direct part in hostilities shall be treated humanely. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 11, Fascicule II, pp. 4 and 5 and Fascicule III, pp. 4 and 5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that “in the event of a civil war, Common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides: a. that persons out of the fighting … because they are wounded … must be treated humanely”, notably they “may not be subjected to any form of violence”. 
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 12, p. 42, § 2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
All persons are to be treated humanely in all circumstances and “without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status or on any other similar criteria”. Their persons, honour, convictions and religious practices must be respected. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.3.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) restates common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
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, § 11.
United States of America
According to the US Air Force Pamphlet (1976), common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions “represents the first attempt to provide protection for victims of all internal armed conflicts. Its general provisions insure humane treatment to civilians and others who are hors de combat.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 11-3.
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) states that the “humane treatment of non-combatants may produce valuable information, gain active support and deny support for the enemy. Mistreatment serves only the interests of the enemy.” The manual specifies that non-combatants include civilians, medical personnel, chaplains, detained or captured persons and the wounded and sick. 
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. 5.
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides that the rules of IHL “are based on one general principle: treat all non-combatants … humanely”. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, pp. 4, 8 and 17.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993) states: “As a State party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions … your country is bound by these treaties … The States party to the Geneva Conventions pledge to … [r]espect the physical integrity, the honour [and] the dignity … of the individual.”  
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, pp. 14–16.
The Code of Conduct also states: “Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, which regulates non-international armed conflicts, provides for the humane treatment of all persons who are [not] taking part in the conflict or who are no longer doing so.” 
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, p. 15.
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states in Chapter 8, Subdivision D—War crimes that are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions:
268.26 War crime – inhumane treatment
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons; and
(b) the person or persons are protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions or under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the person or persons are so protected; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995 as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.26, p. 321.
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).
Croatia
Croatia’s Defence Act (2002), as amended to 2007, states:
Members of the Armed Forces shall, under each and every circumstance when in battle … adhere to the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the humane treatment of enemy soldiers … in accordance with the Constitution, international treaties and laws. 
Croatia, Defence Act, 2002, as amended to 2007, Article 92.
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).
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), as amended to 2008, which contains a section on violations of the rules or customs of war, states in its general provisions: “Any person to whom an offence or fault is attributed has the right to be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human.” 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2008, Article 2.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants must respect and treat with humanity all persons protected by the applicable international conventions”. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Law on the Protection of Childhood and Adolescence (2003) states: “During the execution of sanctions the adolescent shall, at a minimum, have the right to the following: a) Right to … dignity and physical and mental integrity …”. 
Guatemala, Law on the Protection of Childhood and Adolescence, 2003, Article 260(a).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of common Article 3, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 75(1), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 4(1), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Paraguay
Paraguay’s Law on the Status of Military Personnel (1997) provides that respect for human dignity is one of the duties imposed on military personnel because of the constitutional responsibility of the armed forces. 
Paraguay, Law on the Status of Military Personnel, 1997, Article 15(j).
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states that “persons placed hors de combat for … any … reason must in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.2.1; see also Article 7(a).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:
3. … [S]ubjecting a protected person to humiliating or degrading treatment. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 612(3).
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Military Career (2007) states:
The following essential rules define military conduct:
First. … [He or she] shall respect the dignity and inalienable rights of all persons … In no case shall the serviceman or servicewoman be subject to, nor shall they subject others to, measures that undermine their personal dignity. 
Spain, Law on the Military Career, 2007, Article 4(1).
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust protect defenceless or disadvantaged persons, in particular women and children, against … humiliating and degrading treatment”. 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 112.
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Rights and Duties of Members of the Armed Forces (2011) states:
Article 2. Scope of application
1. This law applies to all members of the Armed Forces who acquire the status of military personnel in accordance with Law 39/2007, of 19 November, on Military Career. Accordingly, it applies to official members of the armed forces, except for those persons in administrative roles whose status as military personnel is suspended and students undergoing military training.
2. This status applies to members of the reserves and aspirants when they are incorporated into the armed forces …
Article 6. Rules of conduct of military personnel
1. The essential rules governing the conduct of military personnel are the following:
Fifth
To act in accordance with respect for the person, the common good, and international law applicable during armed conflict. The dignity and inviolable rights of the person are values which one has the obligation to respect and the right to demand. In no event shall military personnel be subject to, or subject others to, measures which result in the violation of personal dignity or undue restriction of a person’s rights. 
Spain, Law on the Rights and Duties of Members of the Armed Forces, 2011, Articles 2 and 6(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Armed Forces Act (2006) provides: “A person subject to service law commits an offence if … he ill-treats a person who is on board a ship or aircraft when it is taken as prize.” 
United Kingdom, Armed Forces Act (2006), Section 38.
United States of America
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c).
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:
3. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health.
29. Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2, 26.3.3 and 26.3.29.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the State of Emergency (2001), which includes situations of internal and international armed conflict, states:
In accordance with Articles 339 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Article 4(2) of the [1966] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 27(2) of the [1969] American Convention on Human Rights, the guarantee to the [following] rights must not be restricted:
7. The [right to] physical, psychological and moral integrity. 
Venezuela, Law on the State of Emergency, 2001, Article 7(7).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states:
The following shall be punished with military arrest or political prison for one to four years:
1. Venezuelan or foreign nationals who, during a war between Venezuela and another nation, violate the … principles observed by civilized peoples during war, such as respect for … non-combatants … , without prejudice to military laws which shall be specially applicable to these matters. 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 155(1).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents (2007) states: “The dignity inherent in the human person … [and] personal integrity … must be respected.” 
Venezuela, Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, 2007, Article 538.
The Law also states: “Every boy, girl and adolescent has the right to personal integrity. This right includes physical, psychological and moral integrity.” 
Venezuela, Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, 2007, Article 32.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2009), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states: “In penal proceedings, all persons should be treated with due respect for the inherent dignity of the human being, with the protection of the rights derived therefrom.” 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2009, Article 10.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Procedure Code (2012), which is applicable to the prosecution of war crimes, states: “In penal proceedings, all persons should be treated with due respect for the inherent dignity of the human being, with the protection of the rights derived therefrom”. 
Venezuela, Penal Procedure Code, 2012, Article 10.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2007, in the Ramić case, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that “it is customary law that … persons hors de combat must be treated humanely, regardless of whether the conflict is international or non-international”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ramić case, Judgment, 21 November 2007, p. 4.
Chile
In its judgment in the Videla case in 1994, Chile’s Appeal Court of Santiago held that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions obliged parties to non-international armed conflicts “to extend humanitarian treatment to persons taking no active part in the hostilities or who have placed themselves hors de combat for various reasons”. 
Chile, Appeal Court of Santiago (Third Criminal Chamber), Videla case, Judgment, 26 September 1994.
Chile
In its judgment in the Contreras Sepúlveda case in 2004, Chile’s Supreme Court stated:
[W]ithout any doubt, the 1949 Geneva Conventions are in force … and oblige State parties in case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring within their territory, which is exactly the situation in Chile during the period of 12 September 1973 and 11 March 1975, to treat humanely … opponents who have laid down their arms, … prohibiting in particular at any time and any place a) violence to life and person, and b) outrages upon personal dignity. 
Chile, Supreme Court, Second Chamber, Contreras Sepúlveda case, Judgment, 17 November 2004, § 34.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated: “In accordance with the principle of humane treatment, … persons hors de combat shall be treated humanely.” 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment, 25 April 2007, p. 100.
(footnote in original omitted)
Peru
In 2006, in the Lucanmarca case, the Second Provisional Criminal Chamber of Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice stated:
International human rights law, international humanitarian law and Peru’s Political Constitution recognize the right to … health, physical integrity, personal liberty and security.
In international humanitarian law, Article 3 common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions prohibits in non-international armed conflicts attempts on the life and physical integrity of civilians, in particular … cruel treatment and attempts on personal dignity. 
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, Second Provisional Criminal Chamber, Lucanmarca case, Judgment, 13 October 2006, p. 209.
Russian Federation
In 1995, in its judgment in the Situation in Chechnya case, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court recognized the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the conflict in Chechnya. While noting that amendments to domestic legislation to ensure its application had not been adopted, the Court stated: “Nevertheless, provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] regarding the humane treatment of all persons who did not directly take part in hostilities or who ceased to take part in hostilities … must be respected by both parties to the armed conflict.” 
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Situation in Chechnya case, Judgment, 31 July 1995, § 5.
Spain
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV on acts against the physical integrity or health of protected persons. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 13.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated:
[O]ne of the fundamental aims of humanitarian … law is to protect the rights … of persons not participating in armed hostilities (Article 3 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the [1977] Additional Protocol II) … In case of national armed conflict, Article 3 establishes as a minimum the obligation to treat non-combatants “humanely” … The standards of Article 3 are considered to be a part of customary law and constitute the minimum – in terms of obligations – that belligerents must always respect. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, p. 8.
Burundi
In 2005, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Burundi stated that, according to its Armed Forces Regulations No. 11, members of the armed forces have a duty to “[a]ct in accordance with the principles of public international law, including by treating … defenceless persons with humanity”. 
Burundi, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 13 March 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/BDI/I, submitted 7 July 2005, § 62.
Colombia
The Report on the Practice of Colombia refers to a draft working paper in which the Colombian Government stated: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.”  
Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 4.1, referring to Presidential Council, Proposal of the Government to the Coordinator Guerrillerra Simón Bolívar to humanize war, Draft Internal Working Paper, Part entitled “El Derecho Internacional Humanitario”, § 1.
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, during the Iran–Iraq War, members of the opposing forces who were hors de combat were well treated. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Islamic Republic of Iran
During the Iran–Iraq War, the Iranian authorities emphasized that Iraqi combatants who were hors de combat were well treated on the basis of Islamic law. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the protection of persons who are hors de combat is a basic tenet of the Israel Defense Forces. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Jordan
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I embodies customary law. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 5.
Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated:
Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include Article 4 providing guarantees to persons taking no active part in hostilities … due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, 11 April 2011, § 75.
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 is aimed not only at states. It also contains numerous provisions for individuals and even civilians to observe. Perhaps the most well known example is Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, according to which persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed “hors de combat” by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated human[e]ly, without violence to life and person, in particular mutilation, torture and cruel treatment. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.2, p. 46.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2009, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Swiss foreign policy is very strongly committed to issues of human security and international humanitarian law … This consists of, in the first place, defending the individual rights of persons in times of peace and in times of war, to protect them from arbitrariness and cruel treatment, and with the support of other States and private actors negotiating and respecting rules imposing humane behaviour regardless of the situation. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, Summary, p. 5677.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, which stated: “Persons who are not or no longer taking part in the hostilities must be treated humanely without any discrimination. This is especially important in the case of detainees.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, Press Release, 15 November 2012.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2010, in its closing submissions to the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him by UK armed forces in Iraq in 2003, the UK Ministry of Defence stated regarding common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: “On its face this protection is restricted to armed conflicts not of an international character. However, it is understood to apply in all forms of armed conflict as part of customary international law to set out the irreducible minimum standard.” 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, § 10.2, p. 10.
The Ministry of Defence further stated:
12. The treaties setting out rules of IHL are supplemented by rules of customary international law (CIL), i.e. rules which are recognized as binding by States, even though they do not appear in treaty texts. … [I]n relation to the rules described below the Government accepts that they reflect CIL. It is suggested that the rules which are of most relevance to this inquiry are:
12.3. … Civilians and persons hors de combat must be treated humanely. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, §§ 12 and 12.3, p. 28.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed:
We support in particular the fundamental guarantees contained in Article 75 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] such as the principle that all persons who are in the power of a party to a conflict and who do not benefit from more favorable treatment under the Conventions be treated humanely in all circumstances and enjoy, at a minimum, the protections specified in the Conventions. 
United States, Remarks by 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. 427.
United States of America
The Report on US Practice states: “It is the opinio juris of the US that persons detained in connection with an internal armed conflict are entitled to humane treatment as specified in Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II].” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.3.
UN Secretary-General
In 2000, in his report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, the UN Secretary-General stated that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II “have long been considered customary international law”. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, UN Doc. S/2000/915, 4 October 2000, § 14.
No data.
No data.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
In its judgment in the Nicaragua case (Merits) in 1986, the ICJ held that the rules contained in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions reflected what the Court in 1949 in the Corfu Channel case (Merits) had called “elementary considerations of humanity”. 
ICJ, Nicaragua case (Merits), Judgment, 27 June 1986, § 218.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
In a separate opinion to the judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) in 2005, Judge Simma observed that Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provided for fundamental guarantees of humane treatment to persons in the power of a Party to the conflict:
27. [This was] confirmed recently in an Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) established by the Council of Europe. This Opinion [adopted by the Venice Commission at its 57th Plenary Session, Venice, 12–13 December 2003, Opinion No. 245/2003, doc. No. CDL-AD (2003) 18, paras. 34 ff.] was prepared to answer the question whether the new challenges posed by international terrorism, and the claims made by the United States in the wake of September 11 [2001] to the effect that the United States could deny certain persons the protection of the Geneva Conventions because they were “enemy unlawful combatants”, rendered necessary a further development of international humanitarian law. According to the Venice Commission, Article 75 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, as well as common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions … “are based on the assumption that nationals of States which are not Parties to the conflict or nationals of co-belligerent States do not need the full protection of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] since they are normally even better protected by the rules on diplomatic protection. Should however, diplomatic protection not be (properly) exercised on behalf of such third party nationals, International Humanitarian Law provides for protection under Article 75 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and common Article 3 so that such persons do not remain without certain minimum rights.” Thus, also according to the Venice Commission, there is “in respect of these matters … no legal void in international law”.
28. Further, it can safely be concluded that the fundamental guarantees enshrined in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I are also embodied in customary international law. 
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, 19 December 2005, §§ 27–28.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgment in the Aleksovski case in 1999, the ICTY held:
A reading of paragraph (1) of common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] reveals that its purpose is to uphold and protect the inherent human dignity of the individual. It prescribes humane treatment without discrimination based on “race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth, or wealth, or any other similar criteria”. Instead of defining the humane treatment which is guaranteed, the States parties chose to proscribe particularly odious forms of mistreatment that are without question incompatible with humane treatment … Hence, while there are four sub-paragraphs which specify the absolutely prohibited forms of inhuman treatment from which there can be no derogation, the general guarantee of humane treatment is not elaborated, except for the guiding principle underlying the Convention, that its object is the humanitarian one of protecting the individual qua human being and, therefore, it must safeguard the entitlements which flow therefrom. 
ICTY, Aleksovski case, Judgment, 25 June 1999, § 49.
Human Rights Committee
In 2006, in its concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) establishing the applicability of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which reflects fundamental rights guaranteed by the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] in any armed conflict. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, 18 December 2006, § 5.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In a case concerning Peru in 1996, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reinforced the principle that the right to humane treatment must be respected at all times, even during emergency or conflict situations, by State agents responsible for law enforcement. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.559 (Peru), Report, 1 March 1996, Section V(2).
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces the rules contained in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and that: “Humane treatment shall be given in all circumstances.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 31 and 187.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in the hostilities … must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1991 in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC reminded the parties that “combatants placed hors de combat must be treated humanely”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1658, Gulf War: ICRC reminds States of their obligations, 17 January 1991, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 26; see also Press Release No. 1659, Middle East Conflict: ICRC appeals to belligerents, 1 February 1991, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 27.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia: “Respect and protect all those not or no longer participating in hostilities.” 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
National Society (Mexico)
In a declaration issued in 1994 in the context of the conflict between the Mexican Government and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), the Mexican Red Cross reminded the parties of their obligation to treat with humanity non-combatants and persons hors de combat. It recalled the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Mexican Red Cross, Declaración en torno a los acontecimientos que se han presentado en el estado de Chiapas a partir del 1o. de Enero de 1994, 3 January 1994.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “Persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances, regardless of the party to which they belong.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § I, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 503.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in confrontations … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994 § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier (eds.), How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 2001, the ICRC reminded the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan of “the requirement that persons not taking part in hostilities must be treated with humanity in all circumstances … Threats to their lives, their physical integrity and their dignity are prohibited.” 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/47, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to conflict to respect international humanitarian law, 24 October 2001.
No data.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides that an individual protected person suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State in the territory of a Party to the conflict or an individual protected person detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, “shall nevertheless be treated with humanity”. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 5.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 27, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides that protected persons “shall at all times be humanely treated”. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 27, first para.
Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam
Article 8(b) of the 1973 Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam provides: “All Vietnamese civilian personnel captured and detained in South Vietnam shall be treated humanely at all times, and in accordance with international practice.” 
Protocol on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam concerning the Return of Captured Military Personnel and Foreign Civilians and Captured and Detained Vietnamese Personnel, signed on behalf of the United States of America, the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam, Paris, 27 January 1973, Article 8(b).
Lieber Code
Article 22 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “The unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit.” 
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 22.
Oxford Manual
Article 7 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden to maltreat inoffensive populations.” 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 7.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 4 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 75(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 4.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.3 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 75(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, § 2.3.
N’Djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement
Article 2 of the 2004 N’Djamena Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement provides that each party shall “[r]efrain from any act of violence or any other abuse on civilian populations”. 
Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement on the Conflict in Darfur, signed by the Government of Sudan, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, the African Union and the Chadian Mediation, N’Djamena, 8 April 2004, Article 2.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides that persons not entitled to claim rights and benefits under the 1949 Geneva Convention IV “shall always be treated with humanity”. 
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, § 4.003.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states: “When … people in the power of a party to the conflict … do not benefit from a better protection than the one provided by the Conventions and the Protocol, they shall be treated … with humanity.” 
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, § 4.15.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides that civilians “are to be treated with compassion and respect”. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 603.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) stipulates that the inhabitants of an occupied territory “must be humanely treated at all times and be especially safeguarded against all acts of violence or threats of violence and against insults and public curiosity”. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1218.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) stipulates that the inhabitants of an occupied territory “must be humanely treated at all times and be especially safeguarded against all acts of violence or threats of violence and against insults and public curiosity”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.36.
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, in internal armed conflicts, the following must be respected: “humanitarian treatment of persons who do not take a direct part in hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms and persons placed hors de combat”. It also provides: “The population in occupied territory must be treated with humanity.” 
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. 17 and Chapter IX, § 2.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that the soldier must treat civilians humanely. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule I, p. 16, Fascicule II, p. 19 and Fascicule III, p. 5.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “Civilians … must be treated with humanity ([including a] prohibition of ill-treatment [and] acts of vengeance …)”. 
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. 55.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) instructs the soldier to treat civilian persons in his or her power humanely. 
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, § 532.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “Rules for Conduct in Combat”, states: “Civilians: respect them; … treat them humanely if they are in your power … protect them from ill-treatment [and] acts of vengeance.” 
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. 31; see also pp. 51, 77, 107 and 323.
The manual also states under the heading “Responsibility for Acts or Omissions of Which Subordinates Are Accused” that a commander may be held responsible for any “inhuman treatment” or “unjustified brutalities against civilian populations” committed by his subordinates. 
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. 99, § 36; see also p. 141, § 421.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that, in occupied territories, “protected persons must be treated humanely at all times”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-4, § 37.
With regard to non-international armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-2, § 10(a).
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) instructs: “Treat all civilians humanely.” It explains: “In your daily interaction with the civilian population, they must at all times be humanely treated.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 4, § 2.
It also provides a list of 11 fundamental rules, among which is “treat all civilians humanely”. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Chapter 3, § 4.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power, and, more specifically, in a section entitled “Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories”:
The person, honour, family rights, religious conventions and practices, and manners and customs of protected persons must in all circumstances be respected.
They must be humanely treated and protected against all acts or threats of violence, and against insults and public curiosity. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1118.
In the same chapter, in a section entitled “Additional Protocol I”, the manual also states:
[Additional Protocol I] provides that all persons in the power of a party to the conflict are entitled to at least a minimum of humane treatment without adverse discrimination on grounds of race, gender, language, religion, political discrimination or similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1135.1.
In its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers, the manual further states in a paragraph dealing with the rights of inhabitants of occupied territory: “Protected persons must be humanely treated at all times and they must be especially safeguarded against all acts of violence or threats of violence and against insults and public curiosity.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1222.2.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
By Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
a. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, gender, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.1.
Canada
Rule 4 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs Canadian Forces (CF) personnel: “Treat all civilians humanely and respect civilian property.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 4.
The Code of Conduct further explains:
1. Rule # 4 deals with the protection of civilians in the theatre of operations … As mentioned, civilians who do not take part in hostilities must not be targeted. They should also be respected and treated humanely in all circumstances … In general, civilians should be treated the way you would like you and your family to be treated in the same circumstances.
Standard of treatment
2. Military operations in foreign lands expose CF personnel to civilian populations that differ markedly from our own. However different or unusual a foreign land may appear, these civilians are in all circumstances entitled to respect for their persons and property, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. In your daily interaction with the civilian population, they must at all times be humanely treated and shall not be subjected to acts of violence, threats, or insults. Women and children in particular must not be subjected to rape, enforced prostitution, and any form of indecent assault. All civilians, subject to favourable considerations based on sex, health or age, must be treated with the same consideration and without any adverse distinction based in particular on race, religion or political opinion. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 4, §§ 1–2.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “Soldiers must: … respect … [civilians]; … treat civilians in their power humanely”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section III; see also Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter V, Section II, § 6; see also Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Section II, § 2.3.
In Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders), the manual states that “civilians who are under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, [and] personal rights”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Fundamental Rules, § 4.
In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states: “All [civilian] persons must be treated humanely under all circumstances. The person, honour, … of all persons must be respected.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Section I.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states: “During combat, it is also prohibited for servicemen to … commit violence to life and person … of civilians”.  
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) requires soldiers to “give humane treatment to all civilians … in your power”. 
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. 26; see also p. 47.
The manual also prohibits “unjustified brutal treatment of the population”. 
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. 70.
Colombia
Colombia’s Soldiers’ Manual (1999) and Instructors’ Manual (1999) provide that civilians must be treated humanely. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – 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, pp. 8 and 10; 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. 8.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in book I (basic instruction):
I.1 Basic rules
[Basic Rule No. 6]:
Treat humanely all civilian persons and all enemies who are in your power.
[Observation]:
- Every person
- must respect the life and dignity of others.
I.2 Specific rules
Civilians
11. Treat humanely those in your power. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 21, 22, 23 and 26; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 16; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 39; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 65.
Croatia
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) provides that civilians must be respected and treated humanely. 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, Rule No. 15.
Croatia
Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993) requires soldiers to treat captured civilians with humanity. 
Croatia, Instructions “Basic Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1993, Instruction No. 5.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states with respect to civilians: “[T]reat humanely those who are in your power.” 
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. 7.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) incorporates the content of Article 5 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
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. 64.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides that civilians not benefiting from the protection of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols shall be treated humanely. 
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, § 518.
Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Civilians”, states:
1. Respect them.
2. Treat those in your power humanely.
3. Protect them against ill-treatment. 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, pp. 9–10; see also p. 15.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Conduct (2011) states: “Defence forces owe respect, protection and assistance to all civilian populations, in particular to vulnerable groups and persons, especially in times of armed conflict.” 
Guinea, Code de Conduite des Forces de Défense (Code of Conduct of the Defence Forces), 2011, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, approved by Presidential Decree No. D. 289/PRG/SGG/2011, 28 November 2011, Article 22.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Conduct (2014) states: “Defence forces owe respect, protection and assistance to all civilian populations, in particular to vulnerable groups and persons, especially in times of armed conflict.” 
Guinea, Code de Conduite des Forces de Défense (Code of Conduct of the Defence Forces), 2014, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 28 November 2011, Article 22.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states: “Civilians are always entitled to respect for their persons, honour, family rights, religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They must always be treated humanely and protected from acts of violence.” 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 10.
The manual also provides a list of “Soldiers Rules”, one of which is: “Treat all civilians humanely.” 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 13.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that, in occupied territories, civilians shall be treated with humanity in all circumstances. 
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, § 41(a).
Italy
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) provides that civilians must be treated humanely. It also provides: “The occupying Power must treat the inhabitants humanely.” 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, §§ 15 and 104 and p. 29.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) instructs the armed forces to “treat humanely civilians who are in your power”. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 82, Rule 23 and p. 85, Rule 6.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “According to the provisions of these [1949 Geneva] Conventions, non-combatants … must be respected and protected by the party in whose power they are”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 73.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that “protected persons must be humanely treated” in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1114 and 1321(2).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) provides: “Male civilians hostile to the Federal Forces are to be dealt with firmly but fairly. They must be humanely treated.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(j).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “Civilians shall … be treated humanely.” 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 39, § 5(k).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
… [C]ivilians affected by armed conflict … must be treated humanely in all circumstances.
[Civilians] … are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical personnel assigned to provide assistance to them must, in all circumstances, treat them humanely, as best they can and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 83.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Civilians … must be respected and treated humanely.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 15, p. 419.
The manual also states:
[T]he civilian population affected by the armed conflict and all those placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the conflict must be treated humanely in all circumstances.
All these categories of people are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical personnel assigned to provide assistance to them must, in all circumstances, treat them humanely, as best as they can and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 74(a), pp. 271–272.
Philippines
The Soldier’s Rules of the Philippines (1989) instructs soldiers to “treat all civilians … in your power with humanity”. 
Philippines, Soldier’s Rules, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(I), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 6.
Poland
Poland’s Code of Honour of the Professional Soldier (2008), in the section entitled “A Professional Soldier in a Combat Situation”, states: “In his dealings with … [the] civilian population, he is guided by humanitarian principles and respect for the values of human life.” 
Poland, Obwieszczenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 3 marca 2008 r. w sprawie ogłoszeniaKodeksu Honorowego Żołnierza Zawodowego Wojska Polskiego, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 5, Item 55, 26 March 2008.
Romania
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) instructs soldiers to “treat humanely [civilian] persons in your power” and “protect them from ill-treatment”. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, pp. 14–15.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) states that the civilian population “shall be granted such a status that would guarantee humane treatment”. 
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, § 7.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “Under any circumstances international humanitarian law ensures humane treatment during an armed conflict of persons not directly involved in combat operations.” 
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, § 4.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Combat Manual (2005) states that “the civilian population must be treated humanely, its property must be respected”. 
Russian Federation, Combat Manual on the Preparation and Conducting of Combined-Arms Battles (Boevoi ustav po podgotovke i vedeniu obshevoiskovogo boya), Part 3, Platoon, Subdivision, Tank, endorsed by Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces No. 19, 24 February 2005, § 24.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Treat civilians … with humanity.” 
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. 34.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that in occupied territory, “the Occupying Power shall treat the inhabitants humanely”. 
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, § 10.8.i.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Treat all civilians … in your power with humanity”. 
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, § 5.5.b; see also § 10.3.e.(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Manual (1984) provides that the enemy civilian population is to be treated with humanity. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 4 and 146; Military Manual (1984), p. 34; Droit des gens en temps de guerre, Programme d’instruction fondé sur le Manuel 51.7/III “Lois et coutumes de la guerre”, Cours de base pour recrues de toutes les armes 97.2f, Armée suisse, 1986, p. 43.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states: “Foreign civilians or civilians of an adverse party to a conflict are specifically protected under the law of armed conflict. If they are in the hands of a military unit, they must at all times be treated humanely.” 
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, § 198.
(emphasis in original)
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) instructs soldiers to “treat [civilians] humanely and protect them”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 17 and Fascicule II, p. 19.
Uganda
Uganda’s Code of Conduct (1986) instructs: “Never abuse, insult, shout or beat any member of the public.” 
Uganda, Code of Conduct for the National Resistance Army (NRA), Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986 (Amendment), 23 August 1986, Rule 1.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides that civilians “must be humanely treated”. This also applies in occupied territories. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 39 and 547.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states: “An obligation is imposed on belligerents to deal humanely with protected persons.” With regard to enemy aliens, the manual specifies: “[The 1949 Geneva Convention III] ensures the humane treatment of those who remain.” 
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 9, p. 35, §§ 9 and 11; see also Annex A, p. 49, § 20.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on the protection of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict: “All persons are to be treated humanely in all circumstances.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.3.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) recalls Article 27 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, which provides that in occupied territories, civilians must be treated humanely. 
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, § 266.
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) states: “Inhumane treatment of civilians [is a violation] of the law of war for which you can be prosecuted.” 
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 20.
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides: “Persons taking no direct part in hostilities shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, pp. 4, 8 and 17.
United States of America
The US Rules of Engagement for Operation Desert Storm (1991) instructs forces to “treat all civilians and their property with respect and dignity”. 
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § H.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states that Articles 27–34 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV “provide for humane treatment of the individuals protected”. It also states: “Articles 27 and 38 require protected persons in the territory of a belligerent to be humanely treated.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 11-3, 14-4 and 14-5.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993), under the heading “Civilians”, states:
1. Respect them.
2. Treat those in your power humanely.
3. Protect them against ill-treatment. 
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, pp. 10–11.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that in international and non-international armed conflicts, “civilian persons belonging to the adverse party, who are in the hands of the Republic of Azerbaijan, are respected and treated humanely”. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 14.
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).
Croatia
Croatia’s Defence Act (2002), as amended to 2007, states:
Members of the Armed Forces shall, under each and every circumstance when in battle … adhere to the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the humane treatment of enemy soldiers … and the protection of the civilian population … in accordance with the Constitution, international treaties and laws. 
Croatia, Defence Act, 2002, as amended to 2007, Article 92.
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).
El Salvador
Under El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), “the civilian … who commits any inhumane act against the civilian population before, during or after the war” is guilty of a crime. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, Article 363.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants must respect and treat with humanity all persons protected by the applicable international conventions … [C]ivilians … are protected persons.” 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Hungary
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, anyone who treats a civilian person inhumanely, is guilty, upon conviction, of a war crime. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 158(1).
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 5 and 27 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Mexico
Mexico’s Law on the Discipline of the Navy (2002) states: “In their treatment of the civilian population, members of the Navy must conduct themselves with dignity, respecting the rights of the [civilian] persons.” 
Mexico, Law on the Discipline of the Navy, 2002, Article 22.
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 … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(a).
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states: “Persons who do not directly participate in hostilities … must in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.2.1.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust treat … members of the civilian population that are in their power … humanely.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 107.
Sudan
Sudan’s Armed Forces Act (2007) provides:
Subject to the provisions of the Criminal Act of 1991, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding twenty years, or with any lighter penalty, whoever treats inhumanly any of the persons hereinafter mentioned, during wartime, by killing him/her or causing physical or moral injury or grievous suffering thereto …:
(a) civilians, as long as they enjoy such capacity. 
Sudan, Armed Forces Act, 2007, Article 152.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1990) provides for the punishment of “any person who commits an act of harassment that harms civilians or causes a loss of unity between the military and civilians”. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1990, Article 273(1).
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides for the punishment of those “who commit acts of harassing civilians”, including when “the offence is committed in battle zones or in areas where the state of emergency has already been declared”. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, § 338.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2007, in the Ramić case, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that “it is customary law that civilians … must be treated humanely, regardless of whether the conflict is international or non-international”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ramić case, Judgment, 21 November 2007, p. 4.
Colombia
In 2005, in the Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
As members of the civilian population affected by internal armed conflicts, children and adolescents have the right to respect for the fundamental guarantees granted to all persons not actively participating in hostilities, as established by Article 3 common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions, which provide at minimum a right to be treated humanely, to not suffer violence against their … person or dignity. In accordance with this Article, in cases of non-international armed conflicts in the territory of one of the Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply certain minimum guarantees without affecting their legal status as parties to the conflict, including: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities shall be treated humanely in all circumstances without adverse distinction based on discriminatory criteria; ... c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-203/05, Judgment, 8 March 2005, § 5.4.2.2.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated: “In accordance with the principle of humane treatment, civilians … shall be treated humanely.” 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment, 25 April 2007, p. 100.
(footnote in original omitted)
Israel
In its judgment in the Ala’una case in 2003, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
Counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the soldiers at the checkpoints do not properly follow the binding rules, but we are unable to consider a mere, general claim of this kind. We can only recommend to the respondent that the persons in charge of the checkpoints continue to instruct the soldiers at the checkpoints that they conduct themselves with the requisite patience and humaneness and without creating hardship for residents of the villages to an extent that is greater than necessary. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Ala’una case, Judgment, 14 July 2003.
Israel
In its judgment in the Physicians for Human Rights v Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip case in 2004, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
10. The military operations of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in Rafah, to the extent that they affect civilians, are governed by Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land 1907 (hereafter – the Hague Convention) and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War – 1949 (hereafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention). In addition, they are also governed by the principles of Israeli administrative law. See HCJ 393/82 Almasualiah v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank; HCJ 358/88 Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. GOC Central Command. According to these principles, the IDF must act with integrity (both substantive and procedural), with reasonableness and proportionality, and appropriately balance individual liberty and the public interest. See HCJ 3278/02 The Center for the Defense of the Individual v. The Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank.
11. For our purposes, the central injunction of international humanitarian law applicable in times of combat is that civilian persons are “entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof.” Fourth Geneva Convention, § 27. See also the Hague Convention, § 46. This normative framework was formulated by Gasser:
Civilians who do not take part in hostilities shall be respected and protected. They are entitled to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions, and their manners and customs. Their property is also protected. (See Hans Peter Gasser, Protection of the Civilian Population, in The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts 211 (D. Fleck, ed., 1995).)
The basic assumption of this injunction is the recognition of the importance of man, the sanctity of his life, and the value of his liberty. Compare The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, § 1; J.S. Pictet, Commentary: Fourth Geneva Convention 199 (1958). His life may not be harmed, and his dignity must be protected. This basic duty, however, is not absolute. It is subject to “such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.” See Fourth Geneva Convention, § 27. These measures may not “affect the fundamental rights of the persons concerned.” See Pictet, at 207. These measures must be proportionate. See Fleck, at 220. The military operations are directed against terrorists and hostile combatants. They are not directed against civilians. See Fleck, at 212. When civilians, as often happens, enter a zone of combat – and especially when terrorists turn civilians into “human shields” – everything must be done in order to protect the dignity of the local civilian population. The duty of the military commander is double. First, he must refrain from operations that may cause harm to the civilian population. This duty is formulated in the negative. Second, he must take all measures required to ensure the safety of civilians. This latter duty calls for positive action. See Fleck, at 212. Both these duties – which are not always easily distinguishable – should be reasonably and proportionately implemented given considerations of time and place.
12. Together with this central injunction regarding civilians’ human dignity during times of combat, international humanitarian law imposes several specific obligations. These obligations do not exhaust the fundamental principle. They only constitute specific expressions of that principle. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip, Judgment, 30 May 2004, §§ 10–12.
Israel
In its judgment in the Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara’abe case in 2005, the Supreme Court of Israel stated:
[T]he legality of the Israeli settlement activity in the area does not affect the military commander’s duty – as the long arm of the State of Israel – to ensure the life, dignity and honor, and liberty of every person present in the area under belligerent occupation (see Y. Shany “Capacities and Inadequacies: a Look at the Two Separation Barrier Cases” 38 Isr. L. Rev. 230, 243 (2005)). Even if the military commander acted in a manner that conflicted the law of belligerent occupation at the time he agreed to the establishment of this or that settlement – and that issue is not before us, and we shall express no opinion on it – that does not release him from his duty according to the law of belligerent occupation itself, to preserve the lives, safety, and dignity of every one of the Israeli settlers. The ensuring of the safety of Israelis present in the area is cast upon the shoulders of the military commander (compare § 3 of The Fourth Geneva Convention). Professor Kretzmer discussed this:
“[A] theory that posits that the fact that civilians are living in an illegal settlement should prevent a party to the conflict from taking any measures to protect them would seem to contradict fundamental notions of international humanitarian law. After all, the measures may be needed to protect civilians (rather than the settlements in which they live) against a serious violation of IHL” (Kretzmer, at p. 93). 
Israel, Supreme Court, Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara'abe case, Judgment, 15 September 2005, § 20.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v. Prime Minister of Israel in 2009, concerning the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip consequent to the start of Israeli military operations (“Cast Lead”) there in December 2008, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
The fundamental provision of international humanitarian law that applies while conducting hostilities (both in a territory subject to a belligerent occupation and in the territory of the parties to the conflict) is enshrined in art. 27 of the [1949] Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that protected civilians – whether they are located in a territory that is subject to a belligerent occupation or a territory that is under the sovereignty of the parties to the conflict – are entitled in all circumstances, inter alia, to be humanely treated and to be protected against all acts of violence or threats thereof (see also art. 46 of the [1907] Hague Regulations). 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Prime Minister of Israel, Judgment, 19 January 2009, § 16.
Brazil
In 2009, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations stated:
Today, August 12, 2009, the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law is celebrated. The Conventions, which are the main legal instrument in this area, lay down universal rules on … the protection of civilian persons. Brazil ratified the four Conventions in 1957. 
On the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Conventions, the Brazilian Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding International Humanitarian Law and calls on the international community to fully comply with the principles of the Conventions, in favor of the protection of … human dignity in the midst of armed conflicts. 
Brazil, Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law, Note No. 377, 12 August 2009.
China
Upon ratification of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, China stated:
Although the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949, does not apply to civilian persons outside enemy-occupied areas and consequently does not completely meet humanitarian requirements, it is found to be in accord with the interest of protecting civilian persons in occupied territory and in certain other cases. 
China, Reservations made upon ratification of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, 28 December 1956, § 4.
Denmark
In 2006, in a report on the detention and transfer of persons in Afghanistan in 2002, Denmark’s Ministry of Defence stated: “Civilians enjoy comprehensive protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention. … They shall at all times be humanely treated.” 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, p. 4.
Israel
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] operational orders emphasize the duty to protect the dignity of civilians in the course of an armed conflict”. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 36.
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
Article 85 entitled “Principle of Humanity”, contained in Title IV on Operations [of the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009)] clearly embodies the spirit of the [1949] Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocols, as it provides that “[the] … conduct [of members of the armed forces] in any conflict or military operation must conform to the applicable rules of the international treaties on international humanitarian law to which Spain is a party”.
That is further developed in Chapter VI on Ethics in Operations, which goes into specific duties under international humanitarian law … the protection of the … civilian population. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense noted some specific Iraqi war crimes, including inhumane treatment of Kuwaiti and third country civilians. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 634.
No data.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1973)
The 22nd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1973 adopted a resolution on the application of the 1949 Geneva Conventions I, II and III in the Middle East in which it called with urgency for “the total application” of these conventions by the parties to the Middle East conflict, and in particular “of those provisions which relate to the treatment of … civilian victims of the conflict”. 
22nd International Conference of the Red Cross, Teheran, 8–15 November 1973, Res. IV.
No data.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated that “persons not participating or no longer participating in the hostilities, such as … civilians, must be respected and protected in all circumstances” and that “civilians and all non-combatants must be respected and protected”. 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia “to respect and protect all those not participating or no longer participating in hostilities, such as … civilians”. 
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 that “persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities, such as … civilians, shall be protected and respected in all circumstances, regardless of the party to which they belong” and that “civilians do not constitute a military danger and must be respected and humanely treated”. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § I, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, pp. 502–503.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated that “persons not participating or no longer participating in confrontations, such as … civilians, shall be protected and respected in all circumstances” and that “civilian persons who refrain from acts of hostility must be respected and treated humanely”. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
No data.
Geneva Convention I
Article 12, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides that wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field “shall be treated humanely”. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 12, first paragraph.
Geneva Convention II
Article 12, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention II provides that wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea “shall be treated humanely”. 
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 12, first paragraph.
Additional Protocol I
Article 10(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “In all circumstances [all the wounded, sick and shipwrecked] shall be treated humanely.” 
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 10(2). Article 10 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 69.
Additional Protocol II
Article 7(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “In all circumstances [all the wounded, sick and shipwrecked] shall be treated humanely.” 
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 7(2). Article 7 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 109.
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 undertook “to apply the following fundamental principles: wounded and ill persons must be helped and protected in all circumstances”. 
Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, signed by the Presidents of the Six Republics of the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, 5 November 1991.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.1 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides: “All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected. In all circumstances, they shall be respected and protected.” 
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, § 2.1.
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala
In Article IX of the 1994 Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala, the parties recognized the need “to respect the human rights of the wounded”. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, Mexico City, 29 March 1994, annexed to Letter dated 8 April 1994 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. A/48/928-S/1994/448, 19 April 1994, Annex I, Article IX.
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 9.1 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “Members of the armed forces and other persons in the power of the United Nations force who are wounded or sick shall be … treated humanely.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 9.1.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2005)
Paragraph 6 the 2005 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states:
Detainees who are wounded or sick will be cared for by the Detaining Power at first instance. Sick or wounded detainees will not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey, unless their safety, or the safety of others, imperatively demands it. 
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 18 December 2005 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, § 6.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides that the sick and wounded must be respected and protected in all circumstances. 
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, § 3.001.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides for the protection of and respect for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
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, §§ 2.03 and 7.05.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “Sick, wounded and shipwrecked combatants are to be … treated humanely.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 990.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Sick, wounded and shipwrecked combatants are to be … treated humanely”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.95.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that the “wounded, sick and shipwrecked … shall be treated humanely”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 9.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Military Instructions (1992) provides that the wounded and sick must be treated humanely. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Instructions on the Implementation of the International Law of War in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of ABiH, No. 2/92, 5 December 1992, Item 14, § 1.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that all persons hors de combat must be treated with humanity. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(1).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked must be treated humanely, cared for and protected.” 
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. 25.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “The sick, wounded and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely … and protected.” 
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. 44, § 163; see also p. 41, § 152.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “The sick, wounded and shipwrecked must be treated humanely, cared for and protected.” 
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. 164, § 463; see also p. 117, § 392, p. 122, § 403 and p. 159, § 452.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked are to be … treated humanely.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 9-2, § 17.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked are to be protected, respected, treated humanely and cared for by the Detaining Power without any adverse discrimination.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 907.1.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
By Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
a. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, gender, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.1.
In the same chapter, the manual further states: “The wounded and sick among [persons whose liberty has been restricted] are to be treated humanely”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1715.2.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “Wounded, sick or shipwrecked captured combatants … must be treated humanely … and protected.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section III, § 3.1; see also Chapter III, Section II, § 2.2 and Annex, Section II.
Colombia
Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999) provides: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely.” 
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. 24.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in book III, volume 1 (instruction of first-year trainee officers): “Persons hors de combat, such as … wounded, sick and shipwrecked … must be identified as such and treated humanely.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 14; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 24.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) provides that the rule for “wounded and sick … is to treat [them] in a human way”. 
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. 6.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely.” 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11.4.
France
According to France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons must be protected and treated humanely. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 4.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated with humanity. 
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, p. 5.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states that wounded and sick persons shall be treated humanely. 
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, §§ 608 and 1057.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be respected and protected in all circumstances … They shall be treated humanely and cared for.” 
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.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
All wounded and sick, regardless of the party to which they belong, shall be respected and protected. In all circumstances, they shall be treated humanely and shall receive, to the fullest possible extent and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 6.
[emphasis in original]
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 10.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be … treated with humanity.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 77, Rule 21.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “According to the provisions of these [1949 Geneva] Conventions, … the sick and the wounded must be respected and protected by the party in whose power they are”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 73.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “The wounded and sick must, in all circumstances, be treated humanely (with human dignity)”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0604.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
The wounded, the sick and shipwreck survivors must be respected and protected, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict. They must in all circumstances be humanely treated, and provided with the requisite medical care without discrimination. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1055.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states that “wounded, sick and medical personnel should always be protected and humanely treated”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1223.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that the sick, wounded and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1003(1).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) provides: “All military and civilian wounded … must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(l).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides that the wounded and sick who are in the power of a belligerent must be humanely treated. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 35.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
All the wounded [and] sick … must be treated humanely in all circumstances.
All these categories of people are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical personnel assigned to provide assistance to them must, in all circumstances, treat them humanely, as best they can and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 84.d.
The manual also states with regard to the provision of medical services:
It is also important to note that, in certain cases, deliberate omission and serious negligence are also considered to be violations of international humanitarian law, for example, abandoning people without assisting them, when their condition makes such assistance vital, or deliberately exposing the wounded or sick to infection or contagion.
Lastly, medical personnel must refrain from subjecting protected persons to affronts and insults to their dignity, humiliating or degrading treatment and exposure to public curiosity.
They must also ensure that protected persons are not subjected to any form of intimidation. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 83.a.
The manual contains a similar provision with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including … those placed hors de combat by sickness [or] wounds … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
The wounded [and] sick … and all those placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the conflict must be treated humanely in all circumstances.
All these categories of people are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical personnel assigned to provide assistance to them must, in all circumstances, treat them humanely, as best as they can and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 74(a), pp. 271–272.
The manual also states with regard to the provision of medical services:
It is also important to note that, in certain cases, deliberate omission and serious negligence are also considered to be violations of international humanitarian law, for example, abandoning people without assisting them, when their condition makes such assistance vital, or deliberately exposing the wounded or sick to infection or contagion.
Lastly, medical personnel … must also ensure that protected persons are not subjected to any form of intimidation. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 75(c), p. 274.
The manual also states with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons not directly participating in hostilities, including … persons placed hors de combat by sickness [or] wounds … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 72(a), p. 270.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) states: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall treat enemies who are hors de combat (e.g. wounded) humanely and with respect.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2a(3).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that belligerents are obliged to ensure the legal protection of war victims, namely the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. 
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, § 7.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Under any circumstances international humanitarian law ensures humane treatment during an armed conflict of persons not directly involved in combat operations, including those who have been rendered hors de combat by sickness [or] injury. 
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, § 4.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected. In all circumstances they shall be treated humanely.” 
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, § 82.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that soldiers in combat shall treat with humanity all persons placed hors de combat. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, § 1.
Senegal
Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) provides that one of the fundamental guarantees common to IHL conventions and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that all the wounded and sick shall be treated with humanity. 
Senegal, Le DIH adapté au contexte des opérations de maintien de l’ordre, République du Sénégal, Ministère des Forces Armées, Haut Commandement de la Gendarmerie et Direction de la Justice Militaire, Cabinet, 1999, pp. 3 and 24.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides that “soldiers should … treat [the wounded and sick] humanely”. 
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. 37.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “All wounded, sick and shipwrecked … shall be treated humanely.” 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 31.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “All wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to whatever party they belong, … shall be treated humanely”. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 53.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that the wounded and sick shall be treated humanely. 
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, §§ 5.5b, and 7.3.a.(11).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) provides that the wounded and sick shall be treated humanely. 
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, § 5.5.b; see also § 7.3.a.(11).
Sweden
Sweden’s Military Manual (1976) provides that the wounded and sick, whether civilian or combatant, shall be humanely treated. 
Sweden, Folkrätten – Internationella regler i krig, Blhang Svensk soldat, 1976, p. 16.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that the wounded and sick shall be humanely treated. It adds that the “enemy sick and wounded who have laid down their arms or are hors de combat shall be respected”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 69 and 70(1).
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that wounded, sick and shipwrecked combatants “shall be treated humanely”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, pp. 9 and 12.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “The wounded and sick … must be humanely treated.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 339.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “The wounded and sick … must be humanely treated.” 
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 6, p. 22, § 2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
7.3. The wounded and sick are to be protected and respected. They may not be attacked. They must be treated humanely. …
7.3.2. Paragraph 7.3 applies to all wounded and sick, whether United Kingdom, allied or enemy, military or civilian. They are entitled to respect and protection [and] humane treatment. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 7.3 and 7.3.2; see also 13.129 (maritime warfare).
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) restates Article 12 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II. 
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, § 215.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) provides: “One of the important principles relating to wounded and sick requires … humane treatment.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 3-4(d).
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely.” 
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), § 11-4.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 11.6.
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states:
Legal Considerations
a. As a subset of military operations, detainee operations must comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations …
c. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are fully applicable as a matter of international law to all military operations that qualify as international armed conflicts … The principles reflected in these treaties are considered customary international law, binding on all nations during international armed conflict. Although often referred to collectively as the “Geneva Conventions,” the specific treaties are:
(1) [1949] Geneva Convention [I] … This convention … requires humane treatment for wounded and sick personnel who fall into enemy hands …
(2) [1949] Geneva Convention [II] … This convention requires the humane treatment and protection of members of the armed forces and other persons at sea who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. I-2–I-3.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
El Salvador
Under El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), “the civilian who violates the duties of humanity … against the wounded … or persons placed in hospitals or places designed for the wounded … before, during or after the war” is guilty of a crime. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, Article 363.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 279.- Maltreatment of, or Dereliction of Duty towards, Wounded, Sick or Prisoners.
Whoever, in violation of the rules of public international law, maltreats a sick or wounded person … or uses violence against him, or prevents him from exercising or makes it impossible for him to exercise, the rights guaranteed to him by such rules, or issues orders to the same effect,
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Articles 4 and 15.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants must respect and treat with humanity all persons protected by the applicable international conventions … [T]he wounded, sick and shipwrecked … are protected persons”. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 12 of Geneva Convention I and Article 12 of Geneva Convention II, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 10, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 7, 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 Army Penal and Procedure Code (1939) states that “anyone who hurts [an] injured or ill military [person] who cannot defend him/herself or treats him/her cruelly [shall] be sentenced to solitary imprisonment from two to 10 years”. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Army Penal and Procedure Code, 1939, Article 384.
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.
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states that “persons placed hors de combat by illness [or] wounds … must in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.2.1.
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing “acts causing harm to health or serious suffering against the wounded, sick [or] shipwrecked” constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 373; see also Article 381.
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
A commander who causes serious harm … to the sick, wounded or shipwrecked, by not according them the treatment prescribed by law or by international agreements … shall be punished, unless the act constitutes a more serious offence, by military confinement for not less than three years. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 382.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust treat … the wounded, sick [and] shipwrecked … that are in their power … humanely.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 107.
Thailand
Thailand’s Military Penal Code (1911) provides for the punishment of “merciless acts against the wounded or sick in the armed forces of any party to the conflict”. 
Thailand, Military Penal Code, 1911, Section 48.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
Though we are unable to express a position regarding the specific events mentioned in the petition … we see fit to emphasize that our combat forces are required to abide by the rules of humanitarian law regarding the care of the wounded, the ill and bodies of the deceased. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgment, 8 April 2002.
Russian Federation
In 1995, in its judgment in the Situation in Chechnya case, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court recognized the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the conflict in Chechnya. While noting that amendments to domestic legislation to ensure its application had not been adopted, the Court stated: “Nevertheless, provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] regarding the humane treatment of … [the] wounded [and] sick … must be respected by both parties to the armed conflict.” 
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Situation in Chechnya case, Judgment, 31 July 1995, § 5.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina made an urgent appeal “to make protection and treatment of all wounded and sick persons possible”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Appeal of the Presidency concerning the International Committee of the Red Cross Operations, Pale, 7 June 1992.
Brazil
In 2009, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations stated:
Today, August 12, 2009, the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law is celebrated. The Conventions, which are the main legal instrument in this area, lay down universal rules on the treatment of the wounded … Brazil ratified the four Conventions in 1957. 
On the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Conventions, the Brazilian Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding International Humanitarian Law and calls on the international community to fully comply with the principles of the Conventions, in favor of the protection of … human dignity in the midst of armed conflicts. 
Brazil, Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law, Note No. 377, 12 August 2009.
 
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
Article 85 entitled “Principle of Humanity”, contained in Title IV on Operations [of the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009)] clearly embodies the spirit of the [1949] Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocols, as it provides that “[the] … conduct [of members of the armed forces] in any conflict or military operation must conform to the applicable rules of the international treaties on international humanitarian law to which Spain is a party”.
That is further developed in Chapter VI on Ethics in Operations, which goes into specific duties under international humanitarian law … the protection of the wounded, sick, [and] shipwrecked. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
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 is aimed not only at states. It also contains numerous provisions for individuals and even civilians to observe. Perhaps the most well known example is Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, according to which persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed “hors de combat” by sickness, wounds … or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated human[e]ly, without violence to life and person, in particular mutilation, torture and cruel treatment. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.1, p. 46.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Wounded, sick and shipwrecked
Wounded and sick are defined as members of the armed forces or Civilians, who are in need of medical attention and who renounce all acts of hostility. … International humanitarian law calls on all parties to a conflict to treat the wounded and sick in a humane way, i.e. to shelter, rescue and protect them and to provide medical care. No distinction is to be made, except of a medical nature, and Women are given special consideration. The same rules apply to shipwrecked persons, i.e. to all members of the armed forces and civilians in danger at sea or in any other body of water. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 42.
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support the principle that all wounded and sick and shipwrecked be respected and protected.” 
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. 423.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that the wounded and sick in internal armed conflicts should be treated humanely. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.1.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in El Salvador, the UN General Assembly recommended that the UN Special Representative report on the observance of rules pertaining to the humanitarian treatment of and respect for wounded combatants. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 40/139, 13 December 1985, § 3, voting record: 100-2-42-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1986 on the situation of human rights in El Salvador, the UN General Assembly recommended that the UN Special Representative report on the observance of rules pertaining to the humanitarian treatment of and respect for wounded combatants. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 41/157, 4 December 1986, § 4, voting record: 110-0-40-9.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1973)
The 22nd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1973 adopted a resolution on the application of the 1949 Geneva Conventions I, II and III in the Middle East in which it called with urgency for “the total application” of these conventions by the parties to the Middle East conflict, and in particular “of those provisions which relate to the treatment of … civilian victims of the conflict”. 
22nd International Conference of the Red Cross, Teheran, 8–15 November 1973, Res. IV.
No data.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces , ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 504.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in the hostilities, such as the wounded, sick [and] shipwrecked … must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia “to respect and protect all those not participating or no longer participating in hostilities, such as … wounded [and] sick”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
National Society (Mexico)
In a declaration issued in 1994, in the context of the conflict between the Mexican Government and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), the Mexican Red Cross reminded the parties of their obligation to provide treatment and protection to wounded persons in their power. 
Mexican Red Cross, Declaración en torno a los acontecimientos que se han presentado en el estado de Chiapas a partir del 1 de Enero de 1994, 3 January 1994.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1994, the ICRC reminded all parties to the conflict in Afghanistan that the wounded and sick must benefit from a special protection and be respected in all circumstances. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1764, Afghanistan: ICRC calls for respect for the civilian population, 8 February 1994.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “Persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities, such as the wounded [and] the sick … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances, regardless of the party to which they belong.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § I, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 502.
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: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in confrontations, such as the wounded [and] the sick … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, provides: “In every circumstance, the wounded and sick, whether or not they have taken part in acts of violence, shall be … treated humanely.” 
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 12, IRRC, No. 282, 1991, p. 335.
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 4, second paragraph, of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides that prisoners of war “must be humanely treated”. 
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 4, second para.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 4, second paragraph, of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides that prisoners of war “must be humanely treated”. 
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 4, second para.
Geneva POW Convention
Article 2, second paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides that prisoners of war “shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity”. 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 2, second para.
Geneva Convention III
Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides:
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated … Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 13.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 27, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides that protected persons “shall at all times be humanely treated”. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 27, first para.
Panmunjom Armistice Agreement
Paragraph I(3) of the Annex to the 1953 Panmunjom Armistice Agreement (establishing a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission) provides:
No … affront to [the] dignity or self-respect [of prisoners of war] shall be permitted in any manner for any purpose whatsoever … This Commission shall ensure that prisoners of war shall at all times be treated humanely in accordance with the specific provisions of the [1949 Geneva Convention III], and with the general spirit of that Convention. 
Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a Military Armistice in Korea, Panmunjom, 8 June 1953, Annex, § I(3).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 10(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, Article 10(1).
American Convention on Human Rights
Article 5 of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights provides: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” 
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 5.
Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam
Article 8(a) of the 1973 Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam provides: “All captured military personnel of the parties … shall be treated humanely at all times, and in accordance with international practice.” 
Protocol on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam concerning the Return of Captured Military Personnel and Foreign Civilians and Captured and Detained Vietnamese Personnel, signed on behalf of the United States of America, the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam, Paris, 27 January 1973, Article 8(a).
Additional Protocol II
Article 5(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “Persons … whose liberty has been restricted in any way whatsoever for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be treated humanely.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 5(3). Article 5 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 92.
Lieber Code
Article 76 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “Prisoners of war shall … be treated with humanity.” 
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 76.
Brussels Declaration
Article 23, third paragraph, of the 1874 Brussels Declaration provides that prisoners of war must be treated humanely. 
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874, Article 23, third para.
Oxford Manual
Article 63 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides that prisoners of war must be treated humanely. 
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 63.
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man
Article XXV of the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man provides: “Every individual who has been deprived of his liberty has the right to … humane treatment during the time he is in custody.” 
American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Res. XXX, Bogotá, 2 May 1948, Article XXV.
European Prison Rules
Rule 1 of the 1987 European Prison Rules states: “The deprivation of liberty shall be effected in material and moral conditions which ensure respect for human dignity and are in conformity with these rules.” 
Recommendation No. R (87) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States of the Council of Europe on the European Prison Rules, adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 404th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, Strasbourg, 12 February 1987, Rule 1.
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
Principle 1 of the 1988 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides: “All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” 
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 43/173, 9 December 1988, Principle 1.
Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners
Paragraph 1 of the 1990 Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners provides: “All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings.” 
Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 45/111, 14 December 1990, § 1.
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 undertook “to apply the following fundamental principles: … all arrested persons, and notably combatants who have surrendered, must be treated with humanity; all detaining authorities must ensure the protection of the prisoners”. 
Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, signed by the Presidents of the Six Republics of the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, 5 November 1991.
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 4(6) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that all persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be treated humanely. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part IV, Article 4(6).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 8 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides:
The United Nations force shall treat with humanity and respect for their dignity detained members of the armed forces and other persons who no longer take part in military operations by reason of detention. 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 8.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2005)
The 2005 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states:
3. The Participants will treat detainees in accordance with the standards set out in the Third Geneva Convention.
5. The Afghan authorities will accept (as Accepting Power) detainees who have been detained by the Canadian Forces (the Transferring Power) and will be responsible for maintaining and safeguarding detainees, and for ensuring the protections provided in Paragraph 3 above, to all such detainees whose custody has been transferred to them.
8. A Detaining Power, can be either a Transferring or Accepting Power, and will be a Power which detains the detainee for any period of time beyond that reasonably required between initial capture and transfer. The Detaining Power will be responsible for classification of [a] detainee’s legal status under international law. Should any doubt exist whether a detainee may be a Prisoner of War, the detainee will be treated humanely, at all times and under all circumstances, in a manner consistent with the rights and protections of the Third Geneva Convention, even if subsequently transferred to the custody of an Accepting Power.
10. Recognizing their obligations pursuant to international law to assure that detainees continue to receive humane treatment and protections to the standards set out in the Third Geneva Convention, the Participants, upon transferring a detainee, will notify the International Committee of the Red Cross through appropriate national channels. 
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 18 December 2005 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, §§ 3, 5, 8 and 10.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2007)
The 2007 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states:
1. The following supplements the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan of December 18, 2005, which continues in effect.
3. The Government of Canada will be notified … of any material change of circumstances regarding the detainee including any instance of alleged improper treatment.
4. The Afghan authorities will be responsible for treating such individuals in accordance with Afghanistan’s international human rights obligations including prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, protection against torture and using such force as is reasonable to guard against escape.
10. In the event that allegations come to the attention of the Government of Afghanistan that a detainee transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities has been mistreated, the following corrective action will be undertaken: the Government of Afghanistan will investigate allegations of abuse and mistreatment and prosecute in accordance with national law and internationally applicable legal standards; the Government of Afghanistan will inform the Government of Canada, the AIHRC [Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission] and the ICRC of the steps it is taking to investigate such allegations and any corrective action taken.  
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 3 May 2007 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, §§ 1, 3–4 and 10.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides that prisoners of war shall be treated humanely. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 2.013.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides: “Prisoners of war shall at all times be treated humanely.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 3.12.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states that prisoners of war “must be treated humanely”. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 716; see also § 701.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides with respect to prisoners of war (PW): “The fundamental principle underlying the treatment of PW is that they are … entitled to humane and decent treatment throughout their captivity … The fundamental rules for the treatment of PW are … they must be treated humanely and honourably.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 1001–1002.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) provides with respect to terrorists:
Terrorists do not comply with the LOAC and are not accorded combatant status. They are not entitled to PW [prisoner-of-war] status. While they are entitled to minimum standards of humane treatment, they are fully accountable for actions and will face punishment for violations of international and domestic laws.
The manual also provides with respect to prisoners of war (PW):
10.1 The fundamental principle underlying the treatment of PW is that … are entitled to humane treatment throughout their captivity.
10.2 The fundamental rules for the treatment of PW are:
• they must be treated humanely and honourably;
10.20 … [PW] must be protected at all times, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 5.17, 10.1–10.2 and 10.20; see also § 10.19.
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:
POWs [prisoners of war] shall be treated at all times with humanity. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited and will be regarded as a serious breach of the [1949 Geneva Convention III]. POWs shall at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. 
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. 44.
Belgium
Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Soldiers provides: “Prisoners of war must be treated humanely and protected.” 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Dossier d’Instruction pour Soldat, à l’attention des officiers instructeurs, JS3, Etat-Major Général, Forces Armées belges, undated, p. 10.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that all captured combatants shall be treated humanely. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule I, p. 16, Fascicule II, pp. 9 and 11 and Fascicule III, p. 5.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) stipulates: “From the moment of their capture, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against any acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.” 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 36(1).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “It is prohibited … to wound a person who has surrendered or put down his or her arms, or who has no means of defence left. Persons who have surrendered must be treated humanely just like prisoners of war.” 
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, pp. 114–115; Part I bis, p. 24.
The Regulations also states: “Treat prisoners with humanity.” 
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. 26.
The Regulations further states that prisoners of war “must be treated humanely (they must be provided with food, drink [and] clothing …)”. 
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. 10; see also Part I bis, pp. 24, 55, 93 and 105 and Part I, p. 15.
The Regulations adds: “Prisoners of war may not be subjected to any violence in order to obtain information from them.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 85.
The Regulations also states: “While they wait for their evacuation, captured combatants … may not unnecessarily be exposed to the dangers of combat [and] … must be protected from acts of violence, insults or intimidation.” 
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. 24.
The Regulations further states: “Prisoners of war must be protected from acts of violence or intimidation and from insults and public curiosity. They are entitled to respect for their person and honour.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 105; see also Part I, pp. 11, 15, 56 and 85.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides: “From the moment of their capture, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against any acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.” 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 33.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides that captured enemy combatants shall be treated humanely.  
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, §§ 152 and 532 and p. 96.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “Rules for Conduct in Combat”, states: “Enemy combatants who surrender: treat them humanely.” 
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. 31; see also pp. 51, 77 and 107.
The manual, under the heading “Protection of Enemy Combatants”, also states that prisoners of war “must be spared and treated humanely … Such treatment applies only to combatants who refrain from any hostile acts.” 
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, pp. 230–231, § 544; see also , p. 117, § 392, p. 159, § 451 and p. 323.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 33: Treatment of prisoners of war
From the moment of their capture, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against any acts of violence, insults and public curiosity. They are entitled to respect for their person and their honour as soldiers. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 33.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides with respect to prisoners of war (PWs): “PWs must at all times be treated humanely and must be protected, particularly against any acts of violence or intimidation, as well as against insults and public curiosity.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-3, § 19.
With regard to internees, the manual states: “In many respects the articles contained in [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] as to the treatment of internees are comparable to provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] concerned with the treatment of PWs.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-6, § 49.
Regarding non-international armed conflicts, the manual provides: “The wounded and sick among [persons whose liberty has been restricted] are to be treated humanely.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-3, § 25.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states that Canadian forces must “treat all detained persons humanely in accordance with the standard set by the Third Geneva Convention”. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 6.
The Code of Conduct specifies: “The concept of humane treatment towards those under your control and the standard of treatment which applies to all detained persons … is a long standing rule.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 6, § 3.
The Code of Conduct further states: “Humane treatment includes not only the proper provision of necessities of life but also the type of treatment provided to detained persons.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 6, § 5.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Combatant Status”: “If captured, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities are not entitled to PW [prisoner-of-war] status, but they must nevertheless be treated humanely.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 318.2
In its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs), the manual further states:
1013. Standard of treatment
1. Persons detained, regardless of status, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. The standard for all detained persons is that of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III].
1016. Humane treatment mandatory
1. PWs must at all times be treated humanely and must be protected, particularly against any acts of violence or intimidation, as well as against insults and public curiosity. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1013 and 1016.1.
In its chapter on the treatment of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power and, more specifically, in a section entitled “Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict”, the manual states: “Protected persons who are deprived of their liberty pending proceedings against them or while serving a prison sentence must be humanely treated”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1122.4.
In the same chapter, in a section entitled “Treatment of internees”, the manual further states: “In many respects the articles contained in [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] as to the treatment of internees are comparable to provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] concerned with the treatment of PWs.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1129.1.
In the same chapter, in a section entitled “Additional Protocol I”, the manual also states:
[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] provides that all persons in the power of a party to the conflict are entitled to at least a minimum of humane treatment without adverse discrimination on grounds of race, gender, language, religion, political discrimination or similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1135.1.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
By Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
a. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, gender, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.1.
In the same chapter, the manual further states: “The wounded and sick among [persons whose liberty has been restricted] are to be treated humanely”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1715.2.
Canada
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states: “Detained persons must be treated humanely and in accordance with the basic standards for the treatment of PW [prisoners of war]”. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 109.7.
With regard to the key principles governing the interrogation and tactical questioning of prisoners of war, the manual states that “PW must be humanely treated at all times”. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 404.1.b.
This principle is reiterated in Annex 4A of the manual, governing Interrogation and Tactical Questioning. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 4A04.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct After Capture Manual (2004) states:
CF [Canadian Forces] members who are PWs [prisoners of war] should expect, and demand if necessary, to be treated in accordance with all aspects of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. If CF members are detainees, they should expect treatment at least as well as the standards set out in [the 1949 Geneva Convention III]. In general, CF members have a right to demand that they and their subordinates be treated humanely and protected, particularly against any acts of violence or intimidation, as well as against insults and public curiosity. 
Canada, The Code of Conduct After Capture for the Canadian Forces, B-GJ-005-110/FP-010, National Defence Headquarters, 28 October 2004, § 302.2.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs: “Those who surrender and who are no longer a threat must be protected and treated humanely.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 5, § 2.
Rule 6 of the Code of Conduct states: “Treat all detained persons humanely in accordance with the standard set by the Third Geneva Convention.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 6.
The Code of Conduct further states:
3. … The concept of humane treatment toward those under your control and the standard of treatment which applies to all detained persons, without adverse distinction based on race, nationality, sex, religious belief or political opinion, is a long standing rule.
5. Humane treatment includes not only the proper provision of the necessities of life but also the type of treatment provided to detained persons. PWs and detainees must at all times be protected against insults and public curiosity. Detained persons shall be treated with all due regard to their gender. Searches will be conducted by persons of the same sex unless, in exceptional circumstances, they have to be conducted by a member of the opposite sex. Searches conducted by members of the opposite sex will be carried out in a respectful manner. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 6, §§ 3 and 5.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “Soldiers must: … treat [surrendering enemy combatants] … humanely and protect them”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section I.
In Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders), the manual states: “Captured combatants … who are under the authority of the adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, [and] personal rights … They must be protected against all acts of violence”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Fundamental Rules, § 4; see also Chapter V, Section II, § 6.
Also in Volume 2, the manual states: “Prisoners of war must be … treated humanely, provided they refrain from all hostile activities and do not attempt to escape.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section I; see also Chapter V, Section II, § 6.
Volume 2 further states: “While they are waiting to be taken to superiors, captured combatants: … must be protected against acts of violence, insults and intimidation”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section II, § 2.1.
Volume 2 also states: “Prisoners of war are entitled to humane treatment under all circumstances and to respect for their honour.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Conclusion; see also Chapter V, Section II, § 7.
In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states that “captured military medical and religious personnel must be respected and treated humanely.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Section II, § 2.3.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “Prisoners of war must be treated humanely.” 
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. 26; see also p. 47.
Colombia
Colombia’s Soldiers’ Manual (1999) and Instructors’ Manual (1999) provide that enemy combatants who surrender must be treated humanely. 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – 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. 18; 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. 22.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides: “From the moment of their capture, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against any acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.” 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 33.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in book I (basic instruction):
I.1 Basic rules
[Basic Rule No. 6]:
Treat humanely all civilian persons and all enemies who are in your power.
[Basic rule No. 7]:
Treat prisoners humanely.
[Observation]:
- Every person
- must respect the life and dignity of others.
I.2 Specific rules
Enemy combatant prisoners
4. Treat them humanely. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 21, 22, 23 and 24; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 16; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 39; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 65–66.
In book III, volume 1 (instruction of first-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides: “Persons hors de combat, such as … prisoners of war and other persons captured and detained, must be identified as such and treated humanely.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 14; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 24.
In book IV (instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides:
Chapter 1. Reminder of the law of war
II.6. Humane treatment and non-discrimination
All persons must be treated humanely and must not be made the object of any discrimination based on sex, nationality, race, religion or political convictions.
Example: detention conditions must be tolerable, according to the level of development of the country.
Chapter 5. Prisoners of war
I.1.1. Persons entitled to POW [prisoner-of-war] status
In the case of non-international armed conflicts, one talks of persons deprived of liberty or detained. Nevertheless, these persons shall benefit from humane treatment.
I.3.4. Norms relating to treatment
All detained persons, whatever their status, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.
II.2.1. Humane treatment obligatory
Prisoners of war shall at all times be treated humanely and protected, particularly against any act of violence or intimidation, against insults and public curiosity. 
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, pp. 14, 59, 61 and 62.
Croatia
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) provides that prisoners of war and captured medical and religious personnel must be respected and treated humanely. 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, Rule No. 15.
Croatia
Croatia’s Soldiers’ Manual (1992) states that captured combatants must be treated humanely. 
Croatia, Rules of Conduct for Soldiers, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, p. 4.
Croatia
Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993) requires soldiers to treat captured combatants with humanity. 
Croatia, Instructions “Basic Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1993, Instruction No. 4.
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended in 2006, imposes a criminal sanction on whoever “in violation of the rules of international law, brutally treats … prisoners of war or restricts or prevents the realization of the rights granted to them under these rules”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 165.
Cuba
Cuba’s Regulation of the Internal Order of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (2002) states: “During combat operations, servicemen [will] … safeguard the principles of humanity in the treatment of captured enemies … , in accordance with the norms and principles of International Humanitarian Law.” 
Cuba, Reglamento de Orden Interior de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, 2002, Ministerio de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, aprobado por Orden No. 349 del Ministro de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, Havana, 30 September 2002, Article 8.
Denmark
Denmark’s Directive on the Ban on Torture (2008) states: “Central to the issue [of the ban on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment] is that detainees are treated well and humanely.” 
Denmark, Forbud Mod Tortur og Anden Grusom, Umenneskelig Eller Nedværdigende Behandling Eller Straf, FKODIR 005-01, Forsvarskommandoen, September 2008, p. 4.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “From the time of capture, prisoners must be treated humanely and protected against all acts of violence, insults and public curiosity. They are entitled to respect for their person and their honour.” 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 31(1).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states with regard to “[c]ombatants who surrender”: “[T]reat them humanely and protect them.” 
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. 7.
The manual also states: “The fundamental principles concerning detention are as follows: … respect the dignity of the person”. 
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. 45.
The manual also provides: “Women have … the right under IHL to certain forms of protection specific to their sex, namely the following: Humane treatment of female combatants, notably prisoners of war.” 
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. 23.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) requires that all prisoners and detainees, i.e. any persons in the power of the armed forces, whatever their status, be treated humanely. 
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, pp. 6 and 7.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides that captured enemy combatants and internees shall be treated humanely. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11.8.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Soldier’s Manual provides that enemy combatants who lay down their arms and surrender shall be treated humanely. 
El Salvador, Manual del Combatiente, undated, p. 8.
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides: “Captured combatants shall be treated humanely.” 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 2.1.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides: “Every captured combatant … has the right to respect for his dignity. He shall be treated humanely.” 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 3.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Prisoners of war must be spared and treated with humanity … They shall be protected from acts of violence, insults and intimidation.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 102.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Unlawful combatants do, however, have a legitimate claim to certain fundamental guarantees, including the right to humane treatment.” It also states that civilian “internees shall be treated humanely”. 
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, §§ 302 and 595.
The manual further provides that captured combatants shall be treated with dignity and their person and honour respected. 
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, § 704; see also Soldiers’ Manual (1991), p. 7, § 3.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “Prisoners of war are entitled to treatment consistent with human dignity, in particular to respect for their persons and their honour.” 
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. 7.
Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “PoWs [prisoners of war] shall be treated humanely. They shall be protected from any act of violence as well as from attacks and public curiosity. They shall have the right of respect of their person and honor.” 
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 16.
Greece
The Hellenic Navy Regulations (1993), as amended, provide:
PoWs [prisoners of war] shall be treated humanely, as provided for by IHL. In cases of arrest or handing over of PoWs, the commanding officer should ensure that they shall be protected from any act of violence as well as from attacks and public curiosity. 
Greece, Hellenic Navy Regulations (Part A), Presidential Decree 210/1993, as amended, Article 1408.
Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Imprisoned enemy combatants”, states: “Treat them humanely.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 6.
Under the heading “Rules of conduct in combat”, the manual also states: “Treat prisoners humanely.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 15.
Guinea
Guinea’s Disciplinary Regulations (2012) states: “As soon as they are captured, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against acts of violence, against insults and public curiosity. They are entitled to respect for their persons and their honour.” 
Guinea, Règlement de Service dans les Forces Armées, Volume 1: Règlement de Discipline Générale (Service Regulations in the Armed Forces, Volume 1: General Discipline Regulations), 2012 edition, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, approved by Presidential Decree No. D 293/PRG/SGG/2012, 6 December 2012, Article 13(a).
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) provides that captured combatants and internees shall be treated humanely. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, pp. 75 and 99.
India
India’s Army Training Note (1995) states: “Prisoners of War must at all times be humanely treated.” 
India, Army Training Note, Chief of Staff, Army Training Command, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1995, p. 3/7, § 15(a).
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
When PWs [prisoners of war] are taken, they are prisoners of the Detaining Power, not of the personnel who have captured them. The Detaining Power is responsible for seeing that they are properly treated. PWs must be humanely treated at all times. They must be protected, particularly against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity.
Respect for a PW’s person and honour must be given at all times. All PWs retain the legal rights they had before capture and the right to exercise them so far as is consistent with their captivity. As stated previously, their status is in no sense that of persons convicted of a crime. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 8.
The manual also provides a list of “Soldiers Rules”, one of which is: “Do not … abuse prisoners of war.” 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 13.
Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that all individuals falling under the power of a party to a conflict should, at a minimum, be treated in accordance with the principles of humanity. 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 5.6, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, pp. 12 and 14.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “The disciplinary and punishment rules applicable in the army of the imprisoning country will also apply to the prisoners-of-war … [I]mprisonment under inhumane conditions [is] absolutely forbidden. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 34.
The manual further states: “Even in wartime, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] shall act humanely, as part of Israel’s heritage as a Jewish and democratic state and a member of the family of civilized nations.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 49.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that prisoners of war shall be treated with humanity in all cases. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. II, Chapter I, §§ 2 and 84.
Italy
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) stipulates: “Captured enemy combatants shall be … treated humanely.” 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, §§ 15 and 74 and p. 29.
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) states:
251. … [E]nemy deserters and renegades must be guarded and held separately from the other prisoners, not only for the high level of interest in them in terms of information, but also to save them from possible violence by their compatriots.
Prisoners of war must always be treated humanely.
No coercion may be applied to prisoners to obtain information about the state of their army or their country. Prisoners who refuse to respond must not be threatened or insulted or subject to any kind of harassment or disadvantages.
252. … As soon as prisoners are captured, they must:
- be treated with all due courtesy and military firmness without allowing them to speak among themselves or fraternize, in order to avoid prejudicing the future interrogation;
If necessary to prevent escape, physical constraints may be used, such as locking up or handcuffing.
Prisoners of war must not be forced to assume positions that may cause physical discomfort, however – during the search – they can be forced to lean forward with their hands on a support or lie face down.
It is permissible to make them remain standing or seated with their hands on their head, as long as this position is not held so long as to inflict physical suffering on them.
Prisoners of war must be transported under armed escort … In all cases, whenever necessary, prisoners of war may be blindfolded, to prevent them from observing friendly positions or seeing each other, taking care that the blindfold does not hamper circulation or the ability to breathe through the nose. 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, §§ 251–252.
[emphasis in original]
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides: “Those who have surrendered must be treated humanely as POWs [prisoners of war] or prisoners depending on the nature of the conflict.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, pp. 6, 7 and 14.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “Prisoners of war are entitled to humane treatment.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 22, Rule 15, p. 32, Rule 21, p. 78, Rule 26 and p. 85, Rule 7.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides: “From the moment of their capture, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against any acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.” 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 37.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “Prisoners of war … must be humanely treated and protected at all times, particularly against acts of violence and insults.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 378(A); see also § 159.
In a section entitled “Basic rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts”, the manual also states: “Captured combatants … are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights and convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 409.
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states: “Treat all prisoners and detainees with humanity.” 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(o).
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides: “From the moment of their capture, prisoners must be treated humanely. They must be protected against any acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.” 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(3).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “Prisoners of war must at all times be treated humanely.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. VII-3, § 2.
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states that POWs “have the right to humane treatment. They cannot be exposed to acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.” 
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-41.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
The purpose of holding prisoners of war is to prevent combatants from resuming their role in hostilities. Thus, being a prisoner of war is not a punishment. Prisoners of war must be humanely treated at all times. Humane treatment relates to the attitude to be taken to prisoners of war during their captivity. That is the core of the protection of prisoners of war. In particular, it is prohibited to subject them to medical or scientific experiments. Likewise prisoners of war must be protected against acts of violence, primarily physical violence. Terrorization, that is, intimidation, is also prohibited. Finally, prisoners of war must be protected against public curiosity, i.e. also against the news media (photographs, radio and television). Prisoners of war must not be recognizable.
During the Gulf War of 1990–91, prisoners of war were recognizably portrayed in TV documentaries, in breach of the Geneva Conventions. In one instance, Iraqis taken as prisoners of war were actually made to speak. In 2002, Taliban fighters taken prisoner by the Afghan Northern Alliance were interviewed, in TV documentaries, about the conditions in which they were being held.
If a prisoner of war is not properly treated, the captive may claim payment of compensation from the detaining power. In addition, the persons responsible for improper treatment of prisoners of war, or for permitting such treatment, may be prosecuted as war criminals. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0710.
The manual further states:
Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and their honour … [I]t is forbidden to disclose strictly personal particulars. One facet of this is permission to wear distinctive emblems of nationality and rank, also decorations. Prisoners of war must be protected from insults, and may not be taunted; their good name or honour must not be impugned. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0711.
The manual also provides:
If no means of transport are available, the prisoners of war may also be evacuated on foot. A trained military prisoner of war, in moderate climate conditions, must be deemed fit to move a maximum of 40 km per day in such cases. If the prisoners of war are already suffering from battle fatigue, they may cover only 20 km per day on foot. In severe weather or inhospitable terrain, progress will be slow. “Death marches” are prohibited. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0723.
In addition, the manual provides:
The transfer of prisoners of war may not take place in conditions less favourable than those in which the forces of the detaining power are transferred. Sufficient food and drinking water must be provided during the move. Sick and wounded prisoners of war may not, in principle, be transferred. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0731.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
Servants of the State who use violence or kill a dissident or a civilian must also have grounds in law for their actions, failing which they may be prosecuted. Members of dissident forces, militias and other armed groups who are captured have no right to prisoner-of-war status. Servants of the State, including members of the military, who are captured by a dissident movement, also have no right to prisoner-of-war status. In both cases, prisoners should be treated humanely and receive medical care if necessary. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1030.
In addition, the manual provides:
In internal armed conflicts in which members of the Dutch armed forces are involved all captured members of the military, and all captured members of dissident militias and other armed groups should be treated in the same way as prisoners of war. Any further legal steps to be taken against individual members of such movements may be taken only as instructed by competent courts or other authorized bodies or authorities. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, p. 164.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states: “Every detainee should be treated with human dignity.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1226.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that, in both international and non-international armed conflicts, all detainees must at all times be treated humanely and protected against insults and public curiosity and particularly against any acts of violence or intimidation. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 915, 1137(1) and 1814.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996) states that prisoners have the right to be protected against all forms of violence, in both internal and international armed conflicts. 
Nicaragua, Manual de Comportamiento y Proceder de las Unidades Militares y de los Miembros del Ejército de Nicaragua en Tiempo de Paz, Conflictos Armados, Situaciones Irregulares o Desastres Naturales, Ejército de Nicaragua, Estado Mayor General, Asesoría Jurídica del Nicaragua, 1996, Articles 6 and 14(18).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) states: “Soldiers who surrender … are entitled in all circumstances to humane treatment and respect for their person and their honor.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(e).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) states: “Enemy prisoners … shall be treated humanely.” 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 39, § 5(j).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides that “prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated … Prisoners of war must be protected from violence, threats and the curiosity of the public.” 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 37.
Pakistan
The Manual of Pakistan Military Law (1987) states: “The arrested person will be treated with dignity as required by the custom of service and his self-respect, as far as possible, will be maintained.” 
Pakistan, Manual of Pakistan Military Law, Vol. 1, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, 1987, p. 396.
Peru
Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Security Forces (1991) requires that detained persons be treated humanely. 
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, p. 19.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Prisoners of war must be treated humanely in all circumstances.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 35; see also §§ 83.a and 109.a.
The manual also states, with regard to respect for prisoners of war:
a. They are entitled to respect for their persons and honour.
b. They must be protected against acts of violence, indecency or intimidation and against insults, abuse and public curiosity.
c. Women must be treated with all the regard due to their sex and no less favourably than men.
d. They retain the full exercise of the civil rights they enjoyed upon capture, in or outside their own territory. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 36.a–d; see also § 38.a.
The manual further states:
b. Prisoners of war must not be paraded through the streets to be taunted or tormented by hostile crowds.
c. The honour of prisoners of war must be respected in the media, which must not publish photos in which they can be recognized, unless they agree or wish to be photographed. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 38.b and c.
The manual includes, however: “The treatment to which prisoners of war are entitled only applies if they abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 109.a.
The manual states with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including … those placed hors de combat by … detention … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Prisoners of war must be treated humanely in all circumstances.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 36, p. 253; see also § 74(a), p. 271; § 100(a), p. 297, and § 15, p. 419.
The manual also states with regard to prisoners of war:
a. They are entitled to respect for their person and honour.
b. They must be protected against acts of violence, indecency or intimidation and against insults, abuse and public curiosity.
c. Women must be treated with all the regard due to their sex and no less favourably than men.
d. They retain the full exercise of the civil rights they enjoyed upon capture, in or outside their own territory. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 37(a)–(d), p. 254.
The manual further states:
b. Prisoners of war must not be paraded through the streets to be taunted or tormented by hostile crowds.
c. The honour of prisoners of war must be respected in the media, which must not publish photos in which they can be recognized, unless they agree or wish to be photographed. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 39(b)–(c), p. 254.
However, the manual specifies: “The treatment to which prisoners of war are entitled only applies if they abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 100(a), p. 297.
With respect to situations of non-international armed conflict, the manual states: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including … those placed hors de combat by … detention … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 72(a), p. 270.
The manual further states: “Any person deprived of their liberty has the right to be treated humanely and with respect for their dignity.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 32(a)(2)(b), p. 49; see also § 1(b), p. 147.
Philippines
The Soldier’s Rules (1989) of the Philippines instructs soldiers that “prisoners must be treated humanely”. 
Philippines, Soldier’s Rules, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(I), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 6.
Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines states: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall treat enemies who are hors de combat (e.g. surrendered/captured) humanely and with respect.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2a(3).
Philippines
The Philippine Army Soldier’s Handbook on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (2006) provides:
While not in combat:
8. Inform the troops that a child taken in custody by government forces in an area of armed conflict should be informed of his/her constitutional rights and shall be treated humanely.” 
Philippines, Philippine Army Soldier’s Handbook on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, A Practical Guide for Internal Security Operations, 2006, p. 55, § 8.
Poland
Poland’s Code of Honour of the Professional Soldier (2008), in the section entitled “A Professional Soldier in a Combat Situation”, states: “In his dealings with prisoners of war, … he is guided by humanitarian principles and respect for the values of human life.” 
Poland, Obwieszczenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 3 marca 2008 r. w sprawie ogłoszeniaKodeksu Honorowego Żołnierza Zawodowego Wojska Polskiego, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 5, Item 55, 26 March 2008.
Poland
Poland’s Prisoner of War Handling Procedures (2009) states: “The capturing power shall: … ensure that prisoners of war are treated humanely.” 
Poland, Norma Obronna NO-02-A020:2000, Procedury postępowania z jeńcami wojennymi, enacted by decision No. 134/MON related to the Approval and Enforcement of Regulatory Instruments in Respect of State Defence and Security, 21 April 2009, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 8, Item 99, April 2009, Section 2.1.
Romania
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that enemy combatants who surrender shall be treated humanely. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 7.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that the humane treatment of war victims, namely prisoners of war, must be guaranteed. 
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, §§ 7 and 8(e).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Under any circumstances international humanitarian law ensures humane treatment during an armed conflict of persons not directly involved in combat operations, including those who have been rendered hors de combat by … detention. 
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, § 4.
The Regulations further states: “Prisoners of war shall be treated humanely, protected against any acts of violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity.” 
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, § 50.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
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, § 81.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Combat Manual (2005) states: “An adversary, who has yielded himself prisoner, must be disarmed, if necessary, provided with medical care and handed over to the commander. Prisoners of war must be treated humanely.” 
Russian Federation, Combat Manual on the Preparation and Conducting of Combined-Arms Battles (Boevoi ustav po podgotovke i vedeniu obshevoiskovogo boya), Part 3, Platoon, Subdivision, Tank, endorsed by Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces No. 19, 24 February 2005, § 24.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Prisoners must be treated humanely and are bound only to give information about their identity and nothing more.” 
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. 34.
The manual further states that prisoners of war must be protected “against acts of violence, intimidation, insult or public curiosity”. 
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. 42.
Senegal
Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) provides, with regard to the rights of persons deprived of their liberty: “All wounded and sick shall be treated humanely in any circumstances.” 
Senegal, Le DIH adapté au contexte des opérations de maintien de l’ordre, République du Sénégal, Ministère des Forces Armées, Haut Commandement de la Gendarmerie et Direction de la Justice Militaire, Cabinet, 1999, p. 24.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Soldiers who have surrendered or who are in the control of the enemy … must be protected.” 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 30.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “Treatment of POWs [prisoners of war] must always be humane.” 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 77.
The manual also provides that prisoners of war are entitled to “[p]rotection against abuse”. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 74.
Furthermore, the manual provides that the mistreatment of prisoners of war is a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 57.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that captured enemy combatants, those who surrender and prisoners of war must be respected and treated with humanity. 
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.a.(7), 8.4.a.(1), 10.6.b.(2), 10.6.c. and 10.8.f.(2).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “In international conflicts, unlawful combatants … and persons whose status is in doubt must be treated with humanity and respect when they are captured, in the same way as lawful combatants.” 
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, § 5.5.b; see also § 7.3.a.(7).
The manual also states that prisoners of war “must be treated humanely”. 
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, § 8.4.a.(1); see also § 10.3.e.(1).
The manual further states with regard to combatants without prisoner-of-war status:
They should be given the chance to surrender and, once hors de combat, must be treated humanely. No acts of violence must be committed against them unless they carry out a hostile act or attempt to escape. … What is important is that they treat them with humanity and respect once they are hors de combat. 
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, § 7.3.a.(8).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s military manuals provide that prisoners have the right to be treated humanely and protected against all forms of violence. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre, Manuel 51.7/III dfi, Armée suisse, 1984, p. 24; Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 97; Droit des gens en temps de guerre, Programme d’instruction fondé sur le Manuel 51.7/III “Lois et coutumes de la guerre”, Cours de base pour recrues de toutes les armes 97.2f, Armée suisse, 1986, p. 43.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
Prisoners must be humanely treated at any time and in any place. Any act of torture, physical or mental ill-treatment, degrading treatment or discrimination as well as measures of reprisal are prohibited. The State is responsible for the treatment of prisoners; each individual may be held liable for violations. 
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, § 187.
[emphasis in original]
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that all captured combatants shall be treated humanely. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 16, Fascicule II, pp. 9 and 11 and Fascicule III, p. 5.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Prisoners of war … must be humanely treated. Any acts of violence, intimidation or insult against them shall not be allowed.” 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 2.5.4.1.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides that prisoners of war “must at all times be humanely treated”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 133(b).
According to the manual, all violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that do not amount to grave breaches are also war crimes. In the non-exhaustive list of such war crimes, the manual includes “ordering punishment drill for internees” and “exposing prisoners of war to public insults or mob violence”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides with respect to prisoners of war (PW): “PW must at all times be humanely treated.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 8, p. 29, § 5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Prisoners of war must be humanely treated and their persons and honour respected at all times.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.28.
In its chapter on the definition of armed forces, the manual states:
“Once [combatants] have become ill or have been injured or captured and as a result in any such case stop fighting, they have a right to humane and honourable treatment as prisoners of war. Their lives must be spared and it is the duty of their captors to protect and maintain them.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 4.1.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.
Lastly, the manual provides that “the law of non-international armed conflict clearly requires that any person (whether a combatant or a civilian) detained by either dissident or government forces must be treated humanely”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.6.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides: “Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated.” It further stipulates: “Protected persons who are confined pending proceedings or serving a sentence involving loss of liberty shall during confinement be humanely treated.” 
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, §§ 89 and 276.
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) provides: “A prisoner of war is always to be humanely treated, and must be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 4-1(a).
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) provides that all captured combatants, whether POWs or not, shall be treated humanely. 
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, pp. 12–15.
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states: “American soldiers must treat all prisoners of war, other captured or detained personnel … humanely.” It reminds commanders that “the Hague and the Geneva conventions and the customary law of war explicitly require you to treat captured and detained personnel humanely”. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, pp 4 and 24.
United States of America
The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) recognizes that soldiers have a duty to treat all prisoners of war humanely. 
United States, Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, Center for Law and Military Operations and International Law Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, 1993, p. Q-191.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and provides: “Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 13-2, 14-2 and 14-7.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides: “Combatants that have surrendered or otherwise fallen into enemy hands are entitled to prisoner-of-war status and, as such, must be treated humanely.” 
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), § 11-7.
The Handbook further stipulates: “All interned persons must be treated humanely.” 
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), § 11-8.
United States of America
The US Rules of Engagement for Operation Desert Storm (1991) instruct forces to “treat all prisoners humanely and with respect and dignity”. 
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § I.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
11.1 Introduction
The law of armed conflict requires humane treatment for all persons who are detained. …
11.2 Humane Treatment
All persons in the control of DOD [Department of Defense] personnel (military, civilian, or contractor employee) during armed conflict, or any other military operation, must be treated humanely under international law and U.S. policy until their final release, transfer, or repatriation. Humane treatment includes compliance with Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Some persons who are detained may also qualify for prisoner-of-war status, which provides benefits beyond the baseline humane treatment standard. If doubt exists as to how to treat a particular detainee, you should seek guidance through your chain of command. Until this doubt has been resolved, you must provide the detainee the protections of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.
… Humane treatment is at a minimum protection from unlawful threats or acts of violence and deprivation of basic human necessities and will be afforded to all detained persons without adverse distinction.
All detainees shall … [b]e respected as human beings.  
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, §§ 11.1–11.2.
The Handbook also states: “Unlawful combatants … are entitled to humane treatment as a matter of law and U.S. policy.” 
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(6); see also § 11.3.2.
The Handbook further states: “All interned persons must be treated humanely.”  
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(6); see also § 11.5.
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states:
Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 2310.01E, The Department of Defense Detainee Program establishes the overarching Department of Defense (DOD) detainee policy and directs that all detainees shall be treated humanely at all times during all armed conflicts, however characterized, and in all other military operations. The standards of treatment set forth in the directive apply to all DOD components and DOD contractors assigned to or supporting the DOD components engaged in, conducting, participating in, or supporting detainee operations. These standards also apply to all non-DOD personnel as a condition of permitting access to internment facilities or to detainees under DOD control.
… There is no exception to this humane treatment requirement. Accordingly, the stress of combat operations, the need for intelligence, or deep provocation by captured and/or detained personnel does not justify deviation from this obligation. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. I-1–I-2; see also p. vii.
The manual also states:
During the conduct of modern military operations, members of the Armed Forces of the United States must be prepared to detain a wide array of individuals. Some of these detained persons (hereafter referred to as detainees) will result from international armed conflict and will fall into the conventional category of enemy prisoner of war (EPW). Other categories of detainees, however, … may result from the particular … status of the detainee (unlawful enemy combatants [ECs], civilians, etc.). Regardless of the detainees’ legal status, U.S. forces must treat all detainees humanely and be prepared to properly control, maintain, protect, and account for detainees in accordance with … applicable U.S. law, the law of war, and applicable U.S. policy. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-1.
The manual further states:
Detaining officials must recognize that detained enemy combatants who have not satisfied the applicable criteria in the … [1949 Geneva Convention III] will have a status as unlawful ECs, but are still entitled to humane treatment. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-4.
The manual also states:
Legal Considerations
a. As a subset of military operations, detainee operations must comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations …
c. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are fully applicable as a matter of international law to all military operations that qualify as international armed conflicts … The principles reflected in these treaties are considered customary international law, binding on all nations during international armed conflict. Although often referred to collectively as the “Geneva Conventions,” the specific treaties are:
(3) The [1949] Geneva Convention [III] … This convention provides for the humane treatment of EPWs.
e. Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as construed and applied by U.S. law, establishes minimum standards for the humane treatment of all persons detained by the United States, coalition, and allied forces. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. I-2–I-3.
The manual also states within Chapter III on “Planning for Detainee Operations”:
Because imposition of physical punishment is inconsistent with the humane treatment obligation, commanders must understand the relationship between reward and punishment. As a general rule, withdrawal of privileges provided above the minimum required level of humane treatment is often the most effective sanction for disciplinary infractions. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-10.
The manual also states within this same chapter:
Detainees will be protected from public curiosity at all times. Strict compliance with this requirement is essential. There is no distinction between international and domestic media with regard to this obligation. Media attention concerning detainees is likely to be substantial. Commanders and staffs should anticipate such attention and ensure that supporting public affairs personnel develop procedures, in advance, for dealing with media requests for visits and information … Commanders will prepare and coordinate, in advance, public affairs plans for events such as detainee movements, transfers, or releases, with both the transferring and receiving commanders. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-10.
The manual states within Chapter IV on “Capture and Initial Detention and Screening”:
In any given JOA [joint operations area], any element of the joint force may find itself on a mission in which individuals are captured or placed under the control of U.S. forces. The efficient and effective control, processing, detention, and intelligence exploitation of such personnel is often critical to the success of U.S. forces. The humane treatment and proper care of detained personnel as they are moved to either temporary or permanent internment facilities support this goal.
Capturing units conduct tactical questioning (TQ) for combat information relative to the commander’s critical information requirements. However, the need to obtain information to satisfy these requirements is never a justification to deviate from the obligation to treat detainees humanely. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. IV-1.
The Manual states within Chapter V on “Transport Procedures”:
3. In-transit Operations for Escort Missions
In-transit operations are the most vulnerable period of detainee operations. The security escort team leader will have tactical command and control of all assets in the movement element, from the element’s departure of a DCP [detainee collection point], DHA [detainee holding area], or TIF [theater interment facility] until the element arrives at another facility … Detainees … will be protected from public curiosity (including avoidable exposure to media) …
4. Detainee Movement by Land Transportation
… Capturing units and initial transfers will primarily use land transportation. Further movement of detainees by land transportation should be minimized to limit exposure to hazards, public curiosity, and the media. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. V-2.
The manual also states: “Subordinate joint force commanders (JFCs) and component commanders are primarily responsible for ensuring that detainees are treated humanely at all times”. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. viii.
In the chapter “Roles and Responsibilities”, the Manual states:
5. Joint Force Commanders
a. Ensure that detainees are treated humanely at all times.
6. Component Commanders
a. Ensure that detainees are treated humanely at all times.
7. Commander, Detainee Operations
e. Ensure humane treatment of detainees …
m. Ensure responsibilities of the joint strategic exploitation center, JIDC [joint interrogation and debriefing center] commander(s), and the detention facility commanders (DFCs) are clearly delineated, and all procedures coordinated, in order to accomplish intelligence activities efficiently at the JIDC and security requirements effectively at all facilities while treating all detainees humanely.
8. Detention Facility Commander
a. Ensuring the humane treatment of detainees at all times and under all circumstances. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. II-2–II-5.
The manual also states:
JFCs [joint force commanders] will ensure that all detainees are treated humanely and IAW [in accordance with] U.S. law, the law of war, and applicable U.S. policy. DODD 2310.01E requires that all DOD personnel and contractors will apply, without regard to a detainee’s legal status, at a minimum, the standards articulated in Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. III-11–III-12.
The manual also states:
Detainee Categories
The DOD [Department of Defense] definition of the word “detainee” includes any person captured, detained, or otherwise under the control of DOD personnel (military, civilian, or contractor employee) … It does not include persons being held primarily for law enforcement purposes except where the United States is the occupying power …
a. Enemy Combatant. In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term “enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.”
b. Enemy Prisoner of War. Individual under the custody and/or control of the DOD according to Articles 4 and 5 of the … [1949 Geneva Convention III].
c. Retained Personnel … Personnel who fall into the following categories: official medical personnel of the armed forces exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport, or treatment of wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, and staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and facilities; chaplains attached to enemy armed forces; staff of national Red Cross Societies and that of other volunteer aid societies duly recognized and authorized by their governments to assist medical service personnel of their own armed forces, provided they are exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of, the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, and provided that the staff of such societies are subject to military laws and regulations.
d. Civilian Internee … A civilian who is interned during an armed conflict, occupation, or other military operation for security reasons, for protection, or because he or she has committed an offense against the detaining power. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. I-3–I-5; see also pp. viii and GL-3.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Military Manual (1988) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides that prisoners must be treated humanely. 
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, § 253(3).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993), under the heading “Enemy prisoners”, states: “Treat them humanely.” 
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, p. 9.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s Law on Juvenile Rehabilitation and Training Centres (2009) states regarding the detention of juveniles:
Article 4. Observance of Human Rights.
1. Employees of Juvenile Justice Department Centres (JJDC) & Juvenile Rehabilitation Centres (JRCs), prosecutors, judges and other individuals who are dealing with the juveniles, [whether these are] suspected, accused [or] convicted, are responsible [for] observing … human rights standards while performing their duties.
2. [The] living condition of the juveniles … should [not impact on their] mental or physiological [health], … [deprive] them [of] their rights [nor restrict] their freedom in the Juvenile Justice Department Centres (JJDC). 
Afghanistan, Law on Juvenile Rehabilitation and Training Centres, 2009, Article 4.
Australia
Australia’s Crimes Act (1914), as amended to 2007, states:
23Q Treatment of persons under arrest
A person who is under arrest or a protected suspect must be treated with humanity and with respect for human dignity. 
Australia, Crimes Act, 1914, as amended to 2007, Part IC, Division 3, s.23Q, p. 285.
Australia
Australia’s International Transfer of Prisoners (Military Commission of the United States of America) Regulations (2007), states in its Schedule 1 (Arrangement) that any transfer under this Arrangement is to be on the following conditions:
a. the prisoner is a national of Australia;
b. the sentence imposed on the prisoner by a United States military commission is one of imprisonment;
c. the judgement is final;
d. the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia and the prisoner all consent to the transfer provided that where in view of his age or physical or mental condition either Party considers it necessary, the prisoner’s consent may be given by a person entitled to act on his behalf; and
e. the prisoner will be treated humanely and in accordance with the laws and international obligations of Australia. 
Australia, International Transfer of Prisoners (Military Commission of the United States of America) Regulations, 2007, Schedule 1, § 6, p. 6.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that in international and non-international armed conflicts, prisoners of war must be humanely treated and their person and honour respected. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 22.
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).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states that ordering or committing the following act against a prisoner of war constitutes a war crime: “inhumane treatment”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 175(a).
China
China’s Prison Law (1994) states:
The human dignity of a prisoner shall not be humiliated, and his personal safety, lawful properties, and rights to defence, petition, complaint and accusation as well as other rights which have not been deprived of or restricted according to law shall not be violated. 
China, Prison Law, 1994, Article 7.
Croatia
Croatia’s Defence Act (2002), as amended to 2007, states:
Members of the Armed Forces shall, under each and every circumstance when in battle … adhere to the rules of international humanitarian law regarding the humane treatment of … prisoners of war … in accordance with the Constitution, international treaties and laws. 
Croatia, Defence Act, 2002, as amended to 2007, Article 92.
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).
El Salvador
Under El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), “the civilian who violates the duties of humanity against prisoners of war or hostages … before, during or after the war” is guilty of a crime. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, Article 363.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 279.- Maltreatment of, or Dereliction of Duty towards, Wounded, Sick or Prisoners.
Whoever, in violation of the rules of public international law, maltreats … a prisoner of war or war internee, or uses violence against him, or prevents him from exercising or makes it impossible for him to exercise, the rights guaranteed to him by such rules, or issues orders to the same effect,
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Articles 4 and 15.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants must respect and treat with humanity all persons protected by the applicable international conventions … Prisoners of war … are protected persons”. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Medical Ethics (1996) states:
A Physician brought in to examine or to provide care to a person deprived of their liberty cannot, directly or indirectly, be it by his mere presence, support or authorise violation of that person’s physical or mental integrity or dignity. If he finds that the person has suffered from abuse or ill-treatment, he shall, subject to the consent of the person concerned, inform the judicial authority. 
Guinea, Code of Medical Ethics, 1996, Article 10.
Hungary
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, the person who treats a prisoner of war inhumanely is guilty, upon conviction, of a war crime. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 158(1).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 13 of Geneva Convention III and Article 27 of Geneva Convention IV, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 5(3), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations (2004) states:
The government of Japan shall, upon the treatment of persons captured or interned pursuant to the provision of this Act in armed attack situations (hereinafter referred to as “prisoners of war and other detainees” in this Article), always ensure humanitarian treatment, respect for the lives, bodies, health and honor of prisoners of war and other detainees, and protect them from outrage thereon and or danger thereto based on the [1949] Third [Geneva] Convention or other international humanitarian laws to be applied in cases of international armed conflict. 
Japan, Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations, 2004, Article 2(1).
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s Military Penal Code (1974) states: “Anyone who abandons … or harms a wounded person under his custody, shall be punished by death.” 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Military Penal Code, 1974, Article 56.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any soldier “who maltreats an enemy who has surrendered”. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 53.
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.
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states: “Persons … who have laid down their arms as well as persons placed hors de combat by … detention … must in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.2.1.
Peru
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), which includes provisions on crimes involving violations of international humanitarian law, states:
The police, the prosecutor and the judges must inform the accused immediately and comprehensively of the following rights in order to ensure that he or she benefits from the safeguards essential for his or her defence:
7. Not to be submitted to techniques or methods which interfere with or change his or her free will or to measures violating his or her dignity. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 199(7).
Philippines
The Philippines’ Act No. 2711 (1917) states:
Prisoners shall be treated with humanity. Juvenile prisoners shall be kept, if the jail will admit of it, in apartments separate from those containing prisoners of more than eighteen years of age; and the different sexes shall be kept apart. 
Philippines, Act No. 2711, 1917, Section 1726.
Serbia
Serbia’s Law on Enforcement of Penal Sanctions (2005) states:
Sanctions are enforced in a manner ensuring respect for the dignity of prisoners.
Use of disproportionate force against a prisoner is punishable. 
Serbia, Law on Enforcement of Penal Sanctions, 2005, Article 6.
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing “acts harmful to health and causing serious suffering against prisoners of war” constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 374(1); see also Article 381.
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
A commander who causes serious harm to lawful enemy belligerents who have fallen into his power … by not according them the treatment prescribed by law or by international agreements … shall be punished, unless the act constitutes a more serious offence, by military confinement for not less than three years. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 382.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust treat … prisoners [and] detainees … that are in their power … humanely.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 107; see also Article 110.
Sudan
Sudan’s Armed Forces Act (2007) provides:
Subject to the provisions of the Criminal Act of 1991, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding fifteen years, whoever is competent, and does not exert the necessary care to treat a prisoner of war humanely, in such a manner as to preserve and care for his/her life and dignity, and to treat him/her such treatment as may be fit for his/her position, before taking him/her as prisoner. 
Sudan, Armed Forces Act, 2007, Article 161; see also Article 152.
United States of America
In January 2002, the US Secretary Department of Defense issued a memorandum for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, regarding the status of Taliban and Al Qaida. This said, in part:
The United States has determined that Al Qaida and Taliban individuals under the control of the Department of Defense are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
The Combatant Commanders shall, in detaining Al Qaida and Taliban individuals under the control of the Department of Defense, treat them humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
United States, Department of Defense, Memorandum from Secretary Department of Defense for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Status of Taliban and Al Qaida, 19 January 2002.
United States of America
In February 2002, the US President issued a memorandum to senior members of his administration regarding the humane treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda detainees. This stated:
1. Our recent extensive discussions regarding the status of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees confirm that the application of Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, (Geneva) to the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban involves complex legal questions. By its terms, Geneva applies to conflicts involving “High Contracting Parties,” which can only be states. Moreover, it assumes the existence of “regular” armed forces fighting on behalf of states. However, the war against terrorism ushers in a new paradigm, one in which groups with broad, international reach commit horrific acts against innocent civilians, sometimes with the direct support of states. Our nation recognizes that this new paradigm – ushered in not by us, but by terrorists – requires new thinking in the law of war, but thinking that should nevertheless be consistent with the principles of Geneva.
2. Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice dated January 22, 2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:
a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.
c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to “armed conflict not of an international character.”
d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.
3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
6. I hereby direct the secretary of state to communicate my determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach. 
United States, Memorandum from President George W. Bush regarding Humane Treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda Detainees, 7 February 2002.
United States of America
In December 2002, the US Secretary of Defense approved a series of interrogation techniques for use on detainees at the US Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility in Cuba that had been recommended to him in a memorandum from the Department of Defense General Counsel, William Haynes II. The memorandum had stated:
The Commander of USSOUTHCOM has forwarded a request by the Commander of Joint Task Force 170 (now JTF GTMO) for approval of counter-resistance techniques to aid in the interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Tab A).
The request contains three categories of counter-resistance techniques, with the first category the least aggressive and the third category the most aggressive (Tab B).
I have discussed this with the Deputy, Doug Feith [Undersecretary of Defense for Policy] and General Myers [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]. I believe that all join in my recommendation that, as a matter of policy, you authorize the Commander of USSOUTHCOM to employ, in his discretion, only Categories I and II and the fourth technique listed in Category III (“Use of mild, non injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing”).
While all Category III techniques may be legally available, we believe that, as a matter of policy, a blanket approval of Category II techniques is not warranted at this time. Our Armed Forces are trained to a standard of interrogation that reflects a tradition of restraint.
RECOMMENDATION: That SECDEF approve the USSOUTHCOM Commander’s use of those counter-resistance techniques listed in Categories I and II and the fourth technique listed in Category III during the interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. 
United States, Department of Defense, Memo from the General Counsel, William Haynes II, to Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Counter-Resistance Techniques, 27 November 2002 (approved by the Secretary of Defense on 2 December 2002).
In January 2003, the Secretary of Defense rescinded that approval for the Category II and III techniques:
My December 2, 2002, approval of the use of all Category II techniques and one Category III technique during interrogation at Guantanamo is hereby rescinded. Should you determine that particular techniques in either of these categories are warranted in an individual case, you should forward the request to me. Such a request should include a thorough justification for the employment of these techniques and a detailed plan for the use of such techniques.
In all interrogations, you should continue the humane treatment of detainees, regardless of the type of interrogation technique employed. 
United States, Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Memorandum for Commander US SOUTHCOM, Counter-Resistance Techniques, 15 January 2003.
United States of America
In April 2003, the US Secretary of Defense issued a Memorandum for the Commander US Southern Command, which approved the use of specific counter-resistance techniques, subject to certain limitations, including that their use be limited to interrogations of unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The memorandum stated, in part:
I reiterate that US Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. In addition, if you intend to use techniques B, I, O, or X [included below], you must specifically determine that military necessity requires its use and notify me in advance.
If, in your view, you require additional interrogation techniques for a particular detainee, you should provide me, via the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a written request describing the proposed technique, recommended safeguards, and the rationale for applying it with an identified detainee.
TAB A - INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES
[Technique] B. Incentive/Removal of Incentive: Providing a reward or removing a privilege, above and beyond those that are required by the Geneva Convention, from detainees. (Caution: Other nations that believe that detainees are entitled to POW [prisoner-of-war] protections may consider that provision and retention of religious items (e.g. the Koran) are protected under international law (see, Geneva III, Article 34). Although the provisions of the Geneva Convention are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique).
[Technique] I. Pride and Ego Down: Attacking or insulting the ego of a detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to a POW. (Caution: Article 17 of Geneva III provides, “Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous, treatment of any kind.” Other nations that believe that detainees are entitled to POW protections may consider this technique inconsistent with the provisions of Geneva. Although the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique.)
[Technique] O. Mutt and Jeff: A team consisting of a friendly and harsh interrogator. The harsh interrogator might employ the Pride and Ego Down technique [Technique I]. (Caution: Other nations that believe that POW protections apply to detainees may view this technique as inconsistent with Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that POWs must be protected against acts of intimidation. Although the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique.)
[Technique] X. Isolation: Isolating the detainee from other detainees while still complying with basic standards of treatment. (Caution: The use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires detailed implementation instructions, including specific guidelines regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and approval for extensions of the length of isolation by the appropriate level in the chain of command. This technique is not known to have been generally used for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days. Those nations that believe detainees are subject to POW protections may view use of this technique as inconsistent with the requirements of Geneva III, Article 13 which provides that POWs must be protected against acts of intimidation; Article 14 which provides that POWs are entitled to respect for their person; Article 34 which prohibits coercion and Article 126 which ensures access and basic standards of treatment. Although the provisions of Geneva are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants, consideration should be given to these views prior to application of the technique.)
TAB B - GENERAL SAFEGUARDS
Application of these interrogation techniques is subject to the following general safeguards: (i) limited to use only at strategic interrogation facilities; (ii) there is a good basis to believe that the detainee possesses critical intelligence; (iii) the detainee is medically and operationally evaluated as suitable (considering all techniques to be used in combination); (iv) interrogators are specifically trained for the technique(s); (v) a specific interrogation plan (including reasonable safeguards, limits on duration, intervals between applications, termination criteria and the presence or availability of qualified medical personnel) has been developed; (vi) there is appropriate supervision; and (vii) there is appropriate specified senior approval for use with any specific detainee (after considering the foregoing and receiving legal advice).
The purpose of all interviews and interrogations is to get the most information from a detainee with the least intrusive method, always applied in a humane and lawful manner with sufficient oversight by trained investigators or interrogators. Operating instructions must be developed based on command policies to insure uniform, careful, and safe application of any interrogations of detainees.
Interrogations must always be planned, deliberate actions that take into account numerous, often interlocking factors such as a detainee’s current and past performance in both detention and interrogation, a detainee’s emotional and physical strengths and weaknesses, an assessment of possible approaches that may work on a certain detainee in an effort to gain the trust of the detainee, strengths and weaknesses of interrogators, and augmentation by other personnel for a certain detainee based on other factors.
Interrogation approaches are designed to manipulate the detainee’s emotions and weaknesses to gain his willing cooperation. Interrogation operations are never conducted in a vacuum: they are conducted in close cooperation with the units detaining the individuals. The policies established by the detaining units that pertain to searching, silencing, and segregating also play a role in the interrogation of a detainee. Detainee interrogation involves developing a plan tailored to an individual and approved by senior interrogators. Strict adherence to policies/standard operating procedures governing the administration of interrogation techniques and oversight is essential.
It is important that interrogators be provided reasonable latitude to vary techniques depending on the detainee’s culture, strengths, weaknesses, environment, extent of training in resistance techniques as well as the urgency of obtaining information that the detainee is known to have.
While techniques are considered individually within this analysis, it must be understood that in practice, techniques are usually used in combination; the cumulative effect of all techniques to be employed must be considered before any decisions are made regarding approval for particular situations. The title of a particular technique is not always fully descriptive of a particular technique. With respect to the employment of any techniques involving physical contact, stress or that could produce physical pain or harm, a detailed explanation of that technique must be provided to the decision authority prior to any decision. 
United States, Memorandum for the Commander US Southern Command from The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Counter-Resistance Techniques in the War on Terrorism, 16 April 2003.
United States of America
The US Detainee Treatment Act (2005) states:
Sec. 1002. Uniform Standards for the Interrogation of Persons Under the Detention of the Department of Defense.
(a) In General - No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
Sec. 1006. Training of Iraqi Forces Regarding Treatment of Detainees.
(a) Required Policies -
(1) In General - The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that policies are prescribed regarding procedures for military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense and contractor personnel of the Department of Defense in Iraq that are intended to ensure that members of the Armed Forces, and all persons acting on behalf of the Armed Forces or within facilities of the Armed Forces, ensure that all personnel of Iraqi military forces who are trained by Department of Defense personnel and contractor personnel of the Department of Defense receive training regarding the international obligations and laws applicable to the humane detention of detainees, including protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions... 
United States, Detainee Treatment Act, 2005, Title X of Public Law 109-148 (the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act), 119 Stat 2680, 30 December 2005, §§ 1002(a), 1003(a) and 1006(a)(1).
United States of America
In July 2006, in response to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), the US Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum regarding the department’s compliance with common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
The Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court found that the military commissions as constituted by the Department of Defense [DoD] are not consistent with Common Article 3.
It is my understanding that, aside from the military commission procedures, existing DoD orders, policies, directives, execute orders, and doctrine comply with the standards of Common Article 3 and, therefore, actions by DoD personnel that comply with such issuances would comply with the standards of Common Article 3 … In addition, you will recall the President’s prior directive that “the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely,” humane treatment being the overarching requirement of Common Article 3.
You will ensure that all DoD personnel adhere to these standards. In this regard, I request that you promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices and procedures under your purview to ensure that they comply with the standards of Common Article 3. 
United States, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon R. England, Memorandum, Application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to the Treatment of Detainees in the Department of Defense, 7 July 2006.
United States of America
In July 2007, and in accordance with section 6(a)(3) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the US President issued an Executive Order which stated that a “Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency” complied with US obligations under common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Executive Order stated, in part:
Sec. 3. Compliance of a Central Intelligence Agency Detention and Interrogation Program with Common Article 3.
(b) I hereby determine that a program of detention and interrogation approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3, provided that:
(i) the conditions of confinement and interrogation practices of the program do not include:
(E) wilful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or
(iii) the interrogation practices are determined by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, based upon professional advice, to be safe for use with each detainee with whom they are used … . 
United States, Executive Order 13440, Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, 20 July 2007.
United States of America
In 2009, the US President issued Executive Order 13491, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, which stated:
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to improve the effectiveness of human intelligence-gathering, to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the [1949] Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:
Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this order:
(f) “Treated humanely” … refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3 [to the 1949 Geneva Conventions].
Sec. 3. Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.
(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340–2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely … , whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States. 
United States, Executive Order 13491, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, 2009, Sections 1, 2(f) and 3(a).
United States of America
In 2009, the US President issued Executive Order 13492, Closure of Guantánamo Detention Facilities, which stated:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:
Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at Guantánamo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with this directive. 
United States, Executive Order 13492, Closure of Guantánamo Detention Facilities, 2009, Section 6.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Military Penal Code (1943), as amended, punishes the violation of “respect for [a prisoner of war’s] dignity”. 
Uruguay, Military Penal Code, 1943, as amended, Article 58(8).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states:
The following shall be punished with military arrest or political prison for one to four years:
1. Venezuelan or foreign nationals who, during a war between Venezuela and another nation, violate the … principles observed by civilized peoples during war, such as respect for prisoners … , without prejudice to military laws which shall be especially applicable to these matters. 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 155(1).
The Law also states:
Any public official in charge of the custody or transfer of a detained or convicted person who commits arbitrary acts against such person or acts not authorized by the applicable regulations shall be punished with fifteen days’ to twenty months’ imprisonment. The same penalty shall be imposed on a public official who, because of his or her functions, holds a position of authority over such person and commits any of the [aforementioned] … acts. Injuries, offences against human dignity, … physical or moral humiliation committed against detainees shall be punished with three to six years’ imprisonment of the guardians or prison guards or of whoever gave the order to commit such acts which are contrary to the individual rights enshrined in Article 46(2) of the Constitution of Venezuela. 
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 181.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents (2007) states: “Every boy, girl and adolescent who is deprived of his or her liberty has the right to be treated humanely and with respect based on his or her dignity as a human person.” 
Venezuela, Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, 2007, Article 89.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1990) provides: “Whoever has mistreated … soldiers who have surrendered shall be punished.” 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1990, Article 275.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Penal Code (1999) provides for the punishment of those “who ill-treat prisoners of war and/or enemy deserters”. 
Viet Nam, Penal Code, 1999, § 340.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Constitution (2013) states:
Chapter 4 – Declaration of Rights
50. Rights of arrested and detained persons
(1) Any person who is arrested
(c) must be treated humanely and with respect for their inherent dignity;
51. Right to human dignity
Every person has inherent dignity in their private and public life, and the right to have that dignity respected and protected.
86. Limitation of rights and freedoms
(3) No law may limit the following rights enshrined in this Chapter, and no person may violate them –
(b) the right to human dignity
87. Limitations during public emergency
(1) In addition to the limitations permitted by section 86, the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter may be further limited by a written law providing for measures to deal with situations arising during a period of public emergency, but only to the extent permitted by this section and the Second Schedule.
(4) No law that provides for a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislative or other measure taken in consequence of such a declaration may –
(a) indemnify, or permit or authorise an indemnity for, the State or any institution or agency of the government at any level, or any other person, in respect of any unlawful act; or
(b) limit any of the rights referred to in section 86(3), or authorise or permit any of those rights to be violated. 
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Sections 50(1)(c), 51, 86(3)(b) and 87(1) and (4).
In its attached Second Schedule on Limitations on Rights During Public Emergencies, the Constitution also states:
1. In this Schedule –
“detainee” means a person who is detained under an emergency law that provides for preventive detention;
“emergency law” means a written law that provides for action to be taken to deal with any situation arising during a period of public emergency;
Extent to which fundamental human rights or freedoms may be limited
2. (1) An emergency law may limit any of the fundamental human rights or freedoms, but only to the extent set out in section 87.
Basic rights of detainees
4. (1) All detainees –
(c) must be treated humanely and with respect for their inherent dignity as human beings. 
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Second Schedule, §§ 1, 2(1) and 4(1)(c).
Canada
In its judgment in the Brocklebank case in 1996, in the context of events that occurred during UN operations in Somalia, the Canadian Military Court of Appeal stated that it was a general principle of law that a person who had custody of a prisoner had the duty to protect him or her. 
Canada, Military Court of Appeal, Brocklebank case, Judgment, 2 April 1996.
Canada
In 2008, in the Amnesty International Canada case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review with respect to detainees held by the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and to the transfer of these individuals to Afghan authorities. The questions before the Federal Court were as follows:
1. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply during the armed conflict in Afghanistan to the detention of non-Canadians by the Canadian Forces or their transfer to Afghan authorities to be dealt with by those authorities?
2. If the answer to the above question is “NO” then would the Charter nonetheless apply if the Applicants were ultimately able to establish that the transfer of the detainees in question would expose them to a substantial risk of torture? 
Canada, Federal Court, Amnesty International Canada case, Judgment, 12 March 2008, §§ 1–2.
The Federal Court answered both questions with “no” and stated:
[55] [Canadian Task Force Afghanistan’s] Theatre Standing Order 321A … provides that while in Canadian custody, detainees are to be “treated fairly and humanely” in accordance with “applicable international law and CF [Canadian Forces] Doctrine”.
[66] On December 19, 2005, the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff for the Canadian Forces signed an agreement entitled “Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” (the “first Detainee Arrangement”).
[67] The first Detainee Arrangement was intended to establish procedures to be followed in the event that a detainee was to be transferred from the custody of the Canadian Forces to a detention facility operated by Afghan authorities. The Arrangement reflects Canada’s commitment to work with the Afghan government to ensure the humane treatment of detainees, while recognizing that Afghanistan has the primary responsibility to maintain and safeguard detainees in their custody.
[166] … [I]n relation to the treatment of detainees, Article 1.2 of the Technical Arrangements [between the government of Canada and the government of Afghanistan] provides that detainees are to be afforded “the same treatment as Prisoners of War” 
Canada, Federal Court, Amnesty International Canada case, Judgment, 12 March 2008, §§ 55, 66–67 and 166.
The Federal Court also held that “international humanitarian law prohibits the mistreatment of captured combatants”. 
Canada, Federal Court, Amnesty International Canada case, Judgment, 12 March 2008, § 278.
The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the findings of the Federal Court. 
Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Amnesty International Canada case, Judgment, 17 December 2008, § 36.
Canada
In 2008, in the Carrasco Varela case, Canada’s Federal Court reviewed a decision by the Immigration and Refugee Board that had found the applicant inadmissible to Canada on grounds of war crimes or crimes against humanity. The Court stated:
[1] The Immigration and Refugee Board found there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. CARRASCO Varela, a Nicaraguan citizen and a member of the Sandinista Front of National Liberation, was an active and willing participant in combat against the Contras, armed guerrillas opposed to the government. His activities included the committing of atrocities against individuals under his guard, the killing of peasants in the mountains and the execution of four prisoners responsible for the kidnapping of a Soviet military attaché, all part of a widespread and systematic attack against any civilian population operating contrary to Sandinista rule. Mr. Carrasco was determined to be a person described in section 35(1) (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, (IRPA), and as such inadmissible to Canada. He was ordered deported.
[2] This is a judicial review of that decision, which held he violated human or international rights for having committed an act outside Canada that constituted an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24. …
[6] It must be borne in mind that crimes against humanity are considered in two different Canadian contexts. Persons are not normally charged in Canada with respect to alleged crimes committed in other jurisdictions. However, war crimes and crimes against humanity are considered so heinous that those alleged to have committed them may be charged in Canada with an indictable offence and, if found guilty, are liable to life imprisonment. Mr. Carrasco has not been charged with a crime against humanity, or any crime, here or elsewhere.
[7] The second context arises in refugee and immigration matters. It may be determined that the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not applicable because section 1F thereof specifically excludes its application to persons who have committed crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity, or that a putative refugee or immigrant is not admissible for having committed an act outside Canada that constitutes either a war crime or a crime against humanity. The burden of proof is neither on the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt nor on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Section 33 of IRPA only requires that there be “… reasonable grounds to believe …”
i) El Chipote prison
[12] Mr. Carrasco served as a prison guard from mid-1984, except for a brief sojourn at San Jose de los Ramates, until he left Nicaragua in 1989. El Chipote was a prison in the capital of Managua where political prisoners were held, although thereafter they might be transferred elsewhere.
[13] According to Mr. Carrasco’s own testimony, prisoners were held in what can only be considered brutal and inhumane conditions. Many were held in tiny bare cells with no means of removing their excrement. They were regularly deprived of food and water … Interrogation techniques included subjecting prisoners to extremes of hot and cold, so much so that some died of heart failure. Reprisals were threatened against their families. Many left, and Mr. Carrasco did not hear of them again. He did not have sufficient authority to make inquiries. I doubt there is clear and compelling evidence to give reason to believe that they were “disappeared” as that term is now used. According to Mr. Carrasco, all he did was escort prisoners to and from their cells and their interrogation rooms.
[14] A case very much on point, and a case frequently cited, is the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 306. In speaking for the Court, Mr. Justice MacGuigan held that simple membership in an organization which, from time to time, commits international offences is not normally sufficient to tar a mere guard with same, unless the organization is principally directed to a limited brutal purpose such as secret police activity. The Sandinistas formed the government and so cannot be considered as being limited to brutal purposes (Moreno v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 298 (C.A) and Murillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 F.C. 287 per Lemieux, J. at para.42).
[15] Mere presence at the scene of an offence is not enough to qualify as personal and knowing participation, and as Mr. Justice MacGuigan added, one must be careful not to automatically condemn everyone engaged in conflict under conditions of war as the law does not demand immediate benevolent intervention at a person’s own risk. “Usually, law does not function at the level of heroism.” However, he went on to say: “With respect to the appellant’s serving as a guard, I find it impossible to say that no properly instructed tribunal could fail to draw a conclusion as to personal participation”.
[16] He added that Mr. Ramirez:
[37] […] was an active part of the military forces committing such atrocities, he was fully aware of what was happening, and he could not succeed in disengaging himself merely by ensuring that he was never the one to inflict the pain or pull the trigger.
[17] Mr. Ramirez only had 20 months of service. Mr. Carrasco had six years; six years which afforded him ample opportunity to withdraw his services and to leave Nicaragua. He did not. The finding that he participated in these atrocities should not be disturbed.
Crimes against humanity and Mr. Carrasco
[26] I have no doubt that the Board was correct in holding that Mr. Carrasco had committed crimes against humanity not only with respect to the murder of the kidnappers, but also with respect to his participation in the abuse of other prisoners at El Chipote Prison. As mentioned above, and relying on Gonzalez, there is insufficient evidence to give reasonable grounds to believe he participated in the murder of peasants in the mountains.
[30] Regardless how the matter is considered, Mr. Carrasco was rightly ordered deported. The order states: “The Immigration Division determines that you are a person described in 35(1) (a) of the Act.” Both crimes against humanity and war crimes are covered.
[31] By the same token, the prisoners in El Chipote Prison were either Contras or ordinary political dissidents. It matters not whether Mr. Carrasco’s involvement could be characterized as ill-treatment of prisoners of war or inhumane acts committed against a civilian population. As Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer noted in Harb, above, even if the prisoners had been soldiers, they were not involved in hostilities at the time of their ill-treatment in prison. She concluded that they could be considered as civilians, basing herself on the decision in International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 in Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14-T, ICTY, March 3, 2000, Trial Chamber.
Defences and mitigation
[34] The defences of superior orders and duress do not apply. Section 14 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act repeats the long standing rule in international law that the defence of superior orders has no application if the order was manifestly unlawful. Cold blooded murder is always manifestly unlawful. Over time Mr. Carrasco also had to come to learn that the treatment of inmates at El Chipote Prison was manifestly unlawful. 
Canada, Federal Court, Carrasco Varela case, Judgment, 8 April 2008, §§ 1–2, 6–7, 12–17, 26, 30–31 and 34.
Israel
In its judgment in Center for the Defense of the Individual v. the Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
24. The basic point of departure for our discussion is the balancing point between the liberty of the individual and the security of the public. On the one hand are the rights of the individual who enjoys the presumption of innocence and desires to live as he wishes. On the other hand lies society’s need to defend itself against those who rise up against it. Detention laws … reflect this balance. Here we find the position that detainees should be treated humanely and in recognition of their human dignity. This is expressed in article 10 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Israel is a member of this covenant. Article 10 of this covenant is generally recognized as reflecting customary international law. See N. S. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners Under International Law 27 (2nd ed. 1999). The article states:
All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with human dignity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
See also the first principle of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. Res. 43/173, U.N. GAOR, 43d Sess., Supp. No. 49, U.N. Doc. A/43/49 (1988). Israel acts according to this principle with regard to all prisoners and detainees. See CA pp 7440/97 State of Israel v. Golan, IsrSC 52(1) 1; HCJL.A. 6561/97 The State of Israel v. Mendelson, IsrSC 52(5) 849; HCJL.A. 823/96 Wanunu v. The Prison Service, IsrSC 51(2) 873). Vice President H. Cohen expressed this principle in Darvish:
Any person in Israel, who has been sentenced to imprisonment, or lawfully detained, is entitled to be held under humane and civilized conditions. It is not significant that this right has yet to be explicitly stated in legislation: this is one of the fundamental human rights, and in a law-abiding democratic state it is so self-evident that it needs not be written or legislated.
Darvish, at 538. Indeed, the nature of detention necessitates the denial of liberty. Even so, this does not justify the violation of human dignity. It is possible to detain persons in a manner which preserves their human dignity, even as national security and public safety are protected. Compare Yosef, at 573. … Even those suspected of terrorist activity of the worst kind are entitled to conditions of detention which satisfy minimal standards of humane treatment and ensure basic human necessities. How could we consider ourselves civilized if we did not guarantee civilized standards to those in our custody? Such is the duty of the commander of the area under international law, and such is his duty under our administrative law. Such is the duty of the Israeli government, in accord with its fundamental character: Jewish, democratic and humane. Compare Yosef, at 573.
25. In addition to these principles, we must consider the principles and regulations set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention sets out the point of departure for the convention:
Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof against and against insults and public curiosity …
However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Center for the Defense of the Individual v. the Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgment, 18 December 2002, §§ 24–25.
Israel
In its judgment in the Yassin case in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
7. It is appropriate to open this discussion with the normative framework of this case, as was done by Justice Shamgar in Sajadia. This is in response to the possible claim that, since the detainees being held in Kziot Camp are terrorists who have harmed innocent people, we should not consider their detention conditions. This argument is fundamentally incorrect. Those being detained in the Kziot Camp have not been tried; needless to say, they have not been convicted. They still enjoy the presumption of innocence. Justice Shamgar expressed this notion in Sajadia:
An administrative detainee has not been convicted, nor is he carrying out a sentence. He is detained in accordance with a decision made by an administrative-military authority, as an exceptional emergency means due to security reasons … The aim of the detention is to prevent security hazards, which arise from actions that the detainee is liable to commit, where there is no reasonable possibility of preventing such hazards through standard legal action, such as criminal proceedings, or by taking administrative steps with milder consequences … The difference between a convicted prisoner and a detainee being held in order to prevent security hazards, is manifest in the status of the administrative detainee and his detention conditions.
Sajadia, at 821. In the same spirit Justice Bach noted:
With all due respect for security considerations, we must not forget that we are talking about detainees deprived of liberty without their having been convicted of any crime in standard criminal proceedings. We must not be satisfied with a situation in which the detention conditions of these detainees are poorer than the conditions of prisoners who have been sentenced to imprisonment after being convicted.
Sajadia, at 831. In a different context, Justice Zamir indicated that:
Administrative detention deprives an individual of his liberty in the most severe fashion. Liberty is denied, not by the court, but rather by an administrative authority; not by a judicial proceeding, but rather by an administrative decision.
Not only should we not allow the detention conditions of administrative detainees to fall short of those of convicted prisoners, we should also strive to ensure that the conditions of detainees surpass those provided to prisoners. These detainees continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence. See HCJ 8259/96 The Association for the Protection of the Rights of Jewish Civilians in Israel v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank (unreported case). This approach was established by the Emergency Powers Regulations (Detention) (Holding Conditions in Administrative Detention)-1981 [hereinafter the Detention Regulations]. The security considerations that led to the detention of these people do not justify holding them under unsatisfactory conditions.
8. The detainees were lawfully deprived of their liberty. They were not, however, stripped of their humanity. In an affair that occurred more than twenty years ago, prior to the legislation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, I remarked:
Every person in Israel enjoys the basic right to bodily integrity and the protection of his dignity as a human being … Convicts and detainees are also entitled to the protection of their bodily integrity and human dignity. Prison walls do not come between the detainee and his human dignity.
HCJ 355/79 Catlan v. The Prison Service. This is especially true after the enactment of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, “which does not focus on the proclamation of the existence of fundamental rights, but rather on their essence, their extent and their practical realization.” CA 5942/92 John Doe v. John Doe. (Shamgar, P.) Therefore, the army must ensure that the detainees be treated humanely, and in recognition of their human dignity. See The Center for the Defense of the Individual, at par. 22. The detention conditions must guarantee civilized and humane life. HCJ 221/80 Darvish v. The Prison Service. Human dignity, which constitutes the foundation of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, together with the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, forms the normative lens through which we examine the dentition [sic] conditions of detainees. This framework is not one-sided. Human liberty is not its sole consideration. Nor is national security its sole consideration. The framework attempts to achieve a balance – at times delicate – between the need to guarantee conditions of detention as humane as possible and the need to guarantee national security.
9. An important legal source with regard to detention conditions is the Emergency Powers (Detention) Law-1979. The Detention Regulations were set out pursuant to the grant of authority contained in this law. These regulations set forth the standards that govern the detention conditions of those who are administratively detained in Israel. They also apply to whoever is detained in the area pursuant to security legislation. This is established in regulation 6(b) of the Emergency Regulations (Offences Committed in Israeli-Held Areas – Jurisdiction and Legal Assistance)-1967, which states:
Where an arrest warrant or detention order has been issued against any person in the area, pursuant to the proclamation or the order of a commander, such a warrant or order may be executed in Israel in the same manner that arrest warrants and detention orders are executed in Israel; and that person may be transferred, for detention, to the area where the crime was committed.
In Sajadia the court held, based on this regulation, that Kziot Camp must heed the Detention Regulations as well. See also HCJ 1622/96 Abad Al Rahman Al Ahmed v. The General Defense Service. Regulation 5(a) of these regulations states that “a detainee in a detention facility shall receive the same meal portion provided to the jailers in that detention location.” The regulations do not specify that there must be an operative canteen in the facility. However, they do specify that “in a detention facility which has a canteen, the commanding officer may permit the detainees to purchase goods there.” The regulations also state that “a detainee is entitled to receive medical treatment and medical equipment, as is demanded by his health condition.” See Regulation 6(b). Regulation 6(a) specifies that “a detainee shall be examined monthly by a doctor designated by the commander, and at any time where it becomes necessary to do so.” The Detention Regulations also state that “a detainee is entitled … to receive bathing and cleaning materials as necessary,” regulation 8(a), as is he entitled “to receive newspapers and books for reading, as has been decided by the commander” regulation 8(c).
10. Aside from these regulations, which concern the conditions of administrative detention, comprehensive rules concerning the conditions of “regular” detention may be found in other legislation and regulations. Section 9(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Jurisdiction and Enforcement – Detentions) Law-1996 states that “a detainee shall be held under suitable conditions, which shall not harm his health or dignity.” Detailed instructions may be found in the Criminal Procedure Regulations (Jurisdiction and Enforcement—Detentions) (Holding Conditions in Detention)-1997.
We shall now turn to the provisions of international law regarding detention conditions.
International Law
11. Israel is not an isolated island. She a member of an international system, which has set out standards concerning conditions of detention. The most significant of these may be found in article 10(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), which states:
All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
This rule, which has the force of customary international law, see The Center for the Defense of the Individual, at par. 23, is in harmony with the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, which protects the dignity of all persons, including detainees. Another important source of international law is the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. These principles were endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988. They establish principles for all forms of detention, including administrative detention. These principles, even if they are not directly binding in internal Israeli law, set forth standards by which any reasonable government authority should act. In this matter we must also refer to article 11(1) of the Guidelines of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on Human Rights and Fight Against Terrorism, which asserts that:
A person deprived of his/her liberty for terrorist activities must in all circumstances be treated with due respect for human dignity.
12. The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War [hereinafter the Fourth Geneva Convention] provides an additional legal source for examination of the detention conditions in Kziot Camp. This convention sets forth comprehensive arrangements concerning conditions of detention. The validity of the convention with regard to the detention conditions at Kziot is not a subject of dispute before us, as Israel sees itself as bound by the humanitarian provisions of the convention. We have reviewed the details of these provisions in The Center for the Protection of the Individual, at par.23.
13. Israeli common law provides an additional legal source concerning this matter. Our common law includes a long list of judgments concerning the conditions of detention in Israel. These judgments are founded on the need to strike a proper balance between the liberty of the individual and the security needs of the public. Justice M. Elon explained the guiding principle of this balance:
It is an important principle that every civil right to which a person is entitled is preserved even when he is imprisoned or detained. Imprisonment does not deprive anyone of any right, unless such deprivation is an inherent part of detention – such as taking away one’s freedom of movement – or where an explicit statute refers to this matter.
HCJ 337/84 Hokma v. The Minister of the Interior, at 832. In the same spirit Justice Matza wrote:
It is a firmly established precept that, even between prison walls, a person’s fundamental rights “survive.” Such rights belong to the prisoner (as well as the detainee) even within his prison cell. The only exceptions to this rule are the prisoner’s right to freedom of movement and other limitations which are inherent to depriving him of his personal liberty, or which are based on explicit legal instructions.
CA 4463/94 Golan v. The Prison Services, at 152-53. Justice Matza continued, at 155:
We do not allow the deprivation of basic human rights, which the prisoners require. These rights consist not only of the prisoner’s right to eat, drink and sleep, but also the right to have these needs supplied in a civilized manner.
These decisions and others like them, whether directly or indirectly, provide standards by which we can examine the detention conditions in Kziot. See, e.g., HCJLA 6561/97 The State of Israel v. Mendelson; HCJL.A. 823/96 Vanunu v. The Prison Service. Furthermore, Israeli administrative law applies to the actions of every government authority in Israel. Thus, these principles apply to the actions of respondents, including the establishment and maintenance of detention conditions. As such, the detention conditions must be reasonable and proportional. See Center for the Defense of the Individual. One may learn about the standards of reasonableness and proportionality from the Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners, which were adopted by the United Nations in 1955. See Droish, at 539; Sajadia, at 832. These standards apply to all forms of imprisonment, including detention. We reviewed the details of these instructions in Center for the Defense of the Individual, at par. 23. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Yassin case, Judgment, 18 December 2002, §§ 7–13.
Israel
In its judgment in the Public Committee against Torture in Israel case in 2006, the Supreme Court of Israel stated: “[C]omprehensive legal rules deal with the status of prisoners of war. Thus, for example, prisoners of war … are to be ‘humanely treated’ (The Third Geneva Convention, art. 13).” 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 23.
Nepal
In its order in the Forced Disappearances case in 2007, the Supreme Court of Nepal stated: “Regardless of the gravity of the detainee’s offence, the treatment of detainees must be humane and meet established human rights standards.” 
Nepal, Supreme Court, Forced Disappearances case, Order, 1 June 2007.
United States of America
In the Maelzer case in 1946, the US Military Commission in Florence convicted the accused of having exposed prisoners of war in his custody to acts of violence, insults and public curiosity in violation of Article 2, second paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention. The prisoners had, among other things, been forced to march through the streets of Rome in a parade emulating ancient triumphal marches. 
United States, Military Commission in Florence, Maelzer case, Trial of 9–14 September 1946.
United States of America
In 2008, in the Harman case, in which the appellant appealed the finding of a military court that had convicted her of conspiracy to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty by wilfully failing to protect detainees from abuse, and maltreatment of detainees – charges that had arisen from a series of incidents that had occurred at the US Baghdad Central Confinement Facility at Abu Ghraib, Baghdad, Iraq, in 2003 – the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the finding of the lower court and its sentence of rank reduction, forfeiture of pay and allowances, confinement for six months and a bad-conduct discharge. The Court of Appeals stated:
She [the appellant] asserts that she was not adequately trained to serve as a prison guard and was not adequately trained in the law of armed conflict. She emphasizes that her company commander testified that her unit was unprepared to perform the mission they were assigned at Abu Ghraib. In addition, given that nudity and handcuffing detainees was common in the prison, she asserts that it was not clear which acts were permissible and which ones were not.
We disagree. Appellant may not have had the ideal training, or even good training, for serving in the prison. Her unit certainly did not behave as a well-trained military police company should. But the facts and reasonable inferences from the facts establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knew that her duties included protecting Iraqi detainees from the kinds of abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment alleged in the specification and in the portions of the bill of particulars of which she was found guilty. 
United States, US Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Harman case, Judgment, 30 June 2008.
Afghanistan
In 2012, the Office of the President of Afghanistan issued a press release entitled “Judicial meeting assesses administrative detention in the light of Afghan laws”, which stated:
The judicial meeting chaired by President Hamid Karzai discussed and assessed various issues including continued detention of over 600 Afghan inmates by US forces, additional Protocol II to the [1949] Geneva Convention[s] and administrative detention in the light of Afghan laws.
At the meeting held in the Presidential Palace, it was noted that based on Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution, the State of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan shall abide by the international treaties and conventions that it has signed.
Hence, Afghanistan fully observes and respects the additional Protocol II to the [1949] Geneva Convention[s] that has enshrined in its provisions, the principles of human rights and treating prisoners humanely. 
Afghanistan, Office of the President, “Judicial meeting assesses administrative detention in the light of Afghan laws”, Press Release, 17 September 2012.
Algeria
It is reported that during Algeria’s war of independence, “the ALN [Armée de Libération Nationale] has always tried to treat French prisoners as humanely as possible”. 
El Moudjahid, Vol. 1, p. 440.
Australia
At the outset of the Iraq War in March 2003, Australia’s Department of Defence issued guidance to news organizations regarding the restrictions under IHL placed on the identification of prisoners of war. This stated in part that “[t]he Australian Defence Force will treat all captives humanely and will comply with the laws of armed conflict to which Australia is bound”. 
Australia, Media release, “Identifying prisoners of war”, Department of Defence, Canberra, 24 March 2003.
Australia
At an Australian Army media briefing on 16 April 2003, called to promulgate the results of an investigation into allegations made against certain Australian soldiers who were part of the UN-mandated INTERFET (International Force for East Timor) operations in East Timor, 1999–2000, the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Peter Leahy, stated the following in response to a question on the treatment of detainees, particularly in relation to allegations concerning the deprivation of food, water and sleep:
We apprehended some militia, we apprehended some people who turned out to be civilians. We needed information from them.
At all times that information was acquired using the Geneva Convention. At all times that information was acquired by people who were thoroughly well-trained, who were well-supervised and used very high professional standards.
But this was not meant to be a four star resort. They had information that could go to the safety and the protection of the civilian population, the safety and protection of our own people. And we have rights and obligations, but also the authority under the Geneva Convention, to interrogate people. And that’s what happened.
Some of that meant that they probably didn’t get the sort of food that they might have liked. Our soldiers were on ration packs. Some have meant that they were treated in a robust manner, but all of the time they were treated properly and correctly under the Geneva Convention.
At a later point during the briefing, the Director of Personnel Operations, Army, Colonel Gerard Fogerty, added to the Chief of Army’s response:
Now, some of the allegations that we’re talking about here relate to activity in an interrogation centre. And further information in relation to your previous question, there were allegations that the detainees were deprived of hygiene and sleep and food. There was no evidence at all that any of the detainees were deprived of any hygiene facilities or food. But certainly we found that they were deprived of some sleep.
And, as you’ve heard from the Chief of the Army, that this in itself in no way contradicted any of our international obligations, particularly in relation to the law of armed conflict or in relation to the Geneva Convention.
But what we did find, and a lesson that we’ve learnt from this, is some of our guidance that we provide to our practitioners is very general. And what we have found that we need to do is make that more definitive. Make it more black and white. This is what we can do under our international obligations and this is what we cannot do.
So in the general comments you heard about some of our procedural amendments that we intend to make. These are policy changes that we intend to make to make it far more definitive for our practitioners. 
Australia, Media briefing by the Chief of Army on the results of an investigation into certain allegations made against Australian Soldiers in East Timor during 1999, 16 April 2003.
Australia
On 13 May 2004, during a debate in Australia’s House of Representatives on a Matter of Public Importance, moved by the Opposition: “The failure of the Howard Government as an Occupying Power in Iraq to honour its obligation under the Geneva Conventions for the humane treatment of Iraqi prisoners”, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Alexander Downer, responded that the claim that Australia was an Occupying Power in Iraq was “debatable”. Nonetheless, he said that the government condemned the abuses that had taken place at Abu Ghraib prison:
[W]e of course condemn the abuses that have taken place in the Abu Ghraib prison. As … I have said to the Americans and to the British government as well, we obviously want this matter dealt with as quickly, as thoroughly and as effectively as possible. All known incidents of abuse need to be dealt with the full force of the law. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Parliamentary Debate: Iraq—Geneva Conventions, Hansard, 13 May 2004, pp. 28676–28677.
Australia
In 2009, in a ministerial statement on Afghanistan before the Senate, Australia’s Minister for Defence stated:
[Australia’s] forces are required to apprehend detainees during operations in Afghanistan. Let me be clear: Australian forces treat these detainees humanely, with dignity and respect, and in accordance with all of Australia’s obligations under domestic and international law. The government, and our Defence Forces, take any allegation of detainee mistreatment very seriously. The Australian Defence Force has undertaken appropriate investigations into any allegations received. Our commitment to an open and transparent approach on these issues is clear. 
Australia, Senate, Minister for Defence, Ministerial statement: Afghanistan, Hansard, 12 August 2009, p. 4748.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina made an urgent appeal to “treat all imprisoned persons humanely”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Appeal of the Presidency concerning the International Committee of the Red Cross Operations, Pale, 7 June 1992.
Brazil
In 2009, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations stated:
Today, August 12, 2009, the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law is celebrated. The Conventions, which are the main legal instrument in this area, lay down universal rules on the treatment of … prisoners of war … Brazil ratified the four Conventions in 1957. 
On the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Conventions, the Brazilian Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding International Humanitarian Law and calls on the international community to fully comply with the principles of the Conventions, in favor of the protection of … human dignity in the midst of armed conflicts. 
Brazil, Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law, Note No. 377, 12 August 2009.
Burundi
In 2005, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Burundi stated that, according to its Armed Forces Regulations No. 11, members of the armed forces have a duty to “[a]ct in accordance with the principles of public international law, including by treating prisoners … with humanity”. 
Burundi, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 13 March 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/BDI/I, submitted 7 July 2005, § 62.
Canada
In 2005, in response to a question concerning respect for the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Canada’s Minister of National Defence stated:
[I]f we take prisoners in Afghanistan, some are released immediately because they are of no interest whatsoever. Any who are kept, because of suspicion of being involved in terrorist or other activity, are treated by Canada and by our Canadian troops in accordance with all standards of humanitarian and international law. When they are then turned over to either Afghan or American authorities, the Red Cross is notified in accordance with conventions so it can take the inspections. Members of the House have heard the assurances of the American government and others that prisoners will be properly treated in accordance with humanitarian standards. 
Canada, House of Commons Debates, Statement by the Minister of National Defence, 30 September 2005, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2006, volume XLIV, p. 646.
Canada
In 2007, in response to a question relating to prisoners of war in Afghanistan, Canada’s Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated:
It is our policy in Afghanistan to ensure that all detainees are treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions. We have an agreement with the Afghan government that it shall do that. We expect it, as a sovereign government, to honour that agreement. We have recently entered into an agreement with the Afghan independent commissioner of human rights. This will also ensure that we have another check to ensure the human rights of detainees are respected. 
Canada, House of Commons Debates, Statement by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, 19 March 2007, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2007, volume XLV, p. 501.
Canada
In 2009, in its third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Canada stated under the heading “Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict”: “All persons apprehended and detained by the Canadian Forces in a theatre of hostilities are treated humanely and in a manner consistent with international legal standards.” 
Canada, Third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 4 January 2012, UN Doc. CRC/C/CAN/3-4, submitted 20 November 2009, § 110.
Chile
In 2002, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Chile stated:
Act No. 19,567 has introduced the following amendments [to the Penal Code]:
(a) It maintains … article 150 of the Penal Code, but with penalties ranging from 61 days to 5 years of rigorous or ordinary imprisonment for persons who … treat … [ a detained person] with unnecessary severity. 
Chile, Third periodic report of Chile to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 55(a).
Chile further stated:
The penalties range from 541 days to 5 years of rigorous or ordinary imprisonment for any public employee who practises against a detainee unlawful physical or mental oppression or who orders or who consents to such oppression. 
Chile, Third periodic report of Chile to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, § 55(b).
Chile also stated:
89. … From the legislative standpoint, the Carabineros Police are governed not only by the relevant constitutional and legal provisions, but by three sets of regulations:
(b) Service Regulation No. 7 for Chiefs and Officers responsible for Order and Security, approved by Supreme Decree No. 639 of 1968, which, in article 57 (1) and (5), establishes … obligations of the guard officer vis-à-vis detainees [such as] … “in no circumstances allowing a detainee to be ill-treated or harassed …”;
(c) Service Regulation No. 10 for Institutionally Appointed Personnel, approved by Supreme Decree No. 1,818 of 1967, which in various provisions refers to the treatment of detainees:
(ii) Article 15, which provides that these officers shall, in general, “treat detainees with consideration, tact and care, preventing personnel from using violent or abusive methods or procedures against them, without distinction as to the social condition of the detainees”;
(iii) Article 16 (2), which establishes as a duty of guard personnel “not to ill-treat or allow to be ill-treated any detainee who arrives or is already in the police station”;
(iv) Article 18 (4), which establishes as one of the duties of the cell supervisor “to deal with requests by detainees and not allow them, while they are in his custody, to be ill-treated or harassed. … “in no circumstances allowing a detainee to be ill-treated or harassed …”.
Investigaciones Police
90. Article 19 of the Investigaciones [Investigations] Police Organization Act “prohibits Investigaciones officers from perpetrating any act of violence intended to obtain statements from the detainee”. Infringement of this provision is punishable by custodial penalties ranging, as for the offence of unnecessary violence punishable under the Code of Military Justice, from 41 days, if no injuries are caused or any injuries are slight, to 15 years if the death of the victim is caused. 
Chile, Third periodic report of Chile to the Committee against Torture, 28 October 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/39/Add.14, submitted 18 February 2002, §§ 89–90.
China
In 2005, in a white paper on “China’s Progress in Human Rights in 2004”, China stated:
The legal rights and interests of people in custody are protected by law. In 2004, the Ministry of Public Security and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly planned, organized and launched a drive to build “model units for strengthening the enforcement of surveillance and legal supervision, and for guaranteeing smooth criminal proceedings and the legal rights and interests of detainees” in all the detention houses throughout China. Consequently, a large number of model detention houses have emerged with advanced facilities, standard law enforcement and humane management. 
China, White Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China: China’s Progress in Human Rights in 2004, April 2005.
Croatia
In 2001, in its third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Croatia stated: “Arrested and convicted persons should be treated humanely with respect for their personal dignity.” 
Croatia, Third periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 22 July 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/54/Add.3, submitted 3 December 2001, § 13.
Djibouti
In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training stated: “Detained persons depend on those who are armed[;] respect for the dignity of these vulnerable persons is an imperative.” 
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 223.
Denmark
In 2006, in a report on the detention and transfer of persons in Afghanistan in 2002, Denmark’s Ministry of Defence stated: “Anyone who is detained, whatever his status under the [1949] Geneva Conventions, must as a minimum be treated humanely.” 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, p. 2.
The ministry further stated:
The requirement for humane treatment of detainees – no matter their status – is also apparent from the Geneva Convention’s Common Article 3 on non-international armed conflicts, which today is perceived as customary law applying to all armed conflicts. 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, p. 4.
Furthermore, the ministry noted:
[The Defence Command’s confidential Directive for the Army Operational Command concerning the use of force during Operation Enduring Freedom, 24 January 2002, states:] “Denmark is responsible for ensuring that all detained personnel shall be treated humanely, including personnel with the right to prisoners of war status […]” It is also clear that the force can detain civilians who prevent the completion of the operation, or if they possess information that is important for the completion of the operation. These civilians may, under the necessary protection and with the consent of the Head of the Danish special operation forces, be left to a superior authority – in this case the U.S. military leadership on the spot – in order [to] enable interrogation. However, these civilians cannot be left where there is real reason to fear that they will not be treated human[e]ly. 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, p. 7.
Lastly, with regard to the transfer of detainees to other States, the ministry stated:
It is clear from this Report that the determining factor of whether a transfer is in accordance with international law is whether the receiving state has acceded to the [1949 Geneva Convention III] and is willing and able to apply it. This condition may, according to the Report, be considered to be satisfied even if the states employing the Convention may have partly differing views on certain issues related to the interpretation of [the] Convention. However, there must in all circumstances exist a basis for believing that the receiving state will treat detainees humanely and grant them basic rights under Conventions. 
Denmark, Report on Factual and Legal Matters Relating to Danish Forces’ Detention and Transfer of Persons in Afghanistan in the First Half of 2002, Ministry of Defence, 13 December 2006, pp. 19–20.
Finland
In 2004, in a report to Parliament on the human rights policy of Finland, Finland stated: “Any persons held in detention by a party to a conflict must enjoy humane treatment.” 
Finland, Government report to Parliament on the human rights policy of Finland 2004, Helsinki: Publications of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2004, p. 99.
Germany
In 2005, in a reply to a question by a Member of the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), a German Minister of State, Federal Foreign Office, wrote:
How does the Federal Government assess the legal view of the United States that so-called unlawful combatants are not entitled to the rights according to the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention?
As is known, the status of the detainees of the United States in Guantanamo and at other places is contentious. The Federal Government is still of the view that, independent of a subsequent status definition, these detainees are to be treated like prisoners of war, i.e. in compliance with international humanitarian law. This comprises: humane treatment, respect for their persons and their honour, protection against acts of violence and intimidation, …. The Federal Government also adheres to its view that the status of the detainees, contentious under international law, requires clarification and an expeditious solution. 
Germany, Bundestag, Stenographic Report, 7th Sitting, Berlin, Wednesday, 14 December 2005, Written reply by Minister of State, Federal Foreign Office, Plenarprotokoll 16/7, 14 December 2005, Anlage 21, p. 407.
Germany
In 2006, in reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Deployment of the Federal Armed Forces in the framework of ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
36. What are the rules of engagement the members of the Federal Navy deployed at the Horn of Africa are subject to in relation to the handling of detainees?
As regards the deployment of the navy forces, questions regarding the detention of persons are subject to the decision by the Federal Ministry of Defence in the individual case. In line with the general instructions to the German armed forces, according to the principles of international humanitarian law and human rights standards detained persons would in all circumstances need to be treated humanely. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Dr. Norman Paech, Monika Knoche, Katrin Kunert, further Members and the Parliamentary Group DIE LINKE – BT-Drs. 16/2899, Deployment of the Federal Armed Forces in the framework of “Operation ENDURING FREEDOM”, BT-Drs. 16/3272, 8 November 2006, p. 11.
Indonesia
According to the Report on the Practice of Indonesia, the leader of an armed opposition group during the insurgencies of the 1950s and 1960s in Western Java stated that the Indonesian armed forces treated the rebels humanely. 
Report on the Practice of Indonesia, 1997, Chapter 5.7.
Israel
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] operational orders emphasize the duty to protect the dignity of civilians in the course of an armed conflict and to provide detainees with humane treatment”. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 36.
The ministry further stated: “The MAG [Military Advocate General] has directly referred for criminal investigation all allegations that … detainees were mistreated while in IDF custody.” 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 37.
Italy
In 2004, in reply to a question concerning the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, Italy’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
The appalling conduct of personnel belonging to armed forces of Coalition countries who allegedly abused Iraqi prisoners calls for the highest indignation and the firmest condemnation by the Italian Government. The Italian Government strongly hopes that those who are responsible for such conduct will undergo an appropriate punishment … Let me finally recall that, also as a consequence of the resonance of the episodes of violence and abuses against the Iraqi prisoners, the Italian contingent applies all possible measures to guarantee, before the transfer takes place, that captured and delivered persons are treated in conformity with international human rights standards. 
Italy, Chamber of Deputies, Permanent Committee IV (Defense), Statement by the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, 26 May 2004, published in Italian Yearbook of International Law, vol. XV, 2005, pp. 401–402.
Malaysia
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia notes that it has been the policy of the Malaysian security forces not to mistreat captured enemies as part of a strategy to give a positive image of themselves, particularly in relation to communist sympathizers. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Malaysia
In 2010, during the consideration of the Status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
8. [The delegate of Malaysia] said that …
10. … [t]he laws of naval warfare incorporated the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including necessity and proportionality …
11. [In the case of the attacks by the Israel Defense Forces on the Mavi Marmara and five accompanying vessels in May 2010] … [w]here vessels were captured, the protections provided in the Second and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 and [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I continued to apply to the persons on board the vessels.  
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2010, as published in the summary record of the 13th meeting, 8 December 2010, UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.13, §§ 8, 10 and 11.
Morocco
In 2003, in its third periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, Morocco stated: “During detention, it is a fundamental principle that there should be no violation of the detainee’s person or dignity.” 
Morocco, Third periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, 23 March 2003, UN Doc. CAT/C/66/Add.1, 21 May 2003, § 59.
Nepal
In 2004, in a declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, the Prime Minister of Nepal stated: “Detained persons shall be kept in humane conditions.” 
Nepal, Declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, 26 March 2004, § 6.
Netherlands
In 2007, in reply to a question concerning guidelines on the treatment of detainees, the Minister of Defence of the Netherlands stated: “At all times detainees need to be treated humanely. The Department of Defence attaches great importance to legal and ethical conduct by the Dutch armed forces.” 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by Minister of Defence, Handelingen, 2007–2008 Session, 6 December 2007, Doc. 31 200-X, No. 74, p. 3.
Norway
In 2006, Norway’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated in the Foreign Policy Address to the Parliament:
No conflict, whether national or international, justifies depriving prisoners of proper protection and their fundamental rights. As a minimum, all prisoners must be humanely treated at all times, regardless of their status. And even if a prisoner’s status is unclear, this cannot be used as a justification for depriving him or her of the fundamental right to protection. The very idea that fundamental rights can be set aside in the fight against terrorism will, in the long term, have the opposite effect from what is intended – it will weaken rather than strengthen the fight against terrorism. 
Norway, Foreign Policy Address to the Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 8 February 2006.
Peru
In 2004, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Peru stated:
With regard to the treatment of persons held in custody, Act No. 27238, the framework law governing the Peruvian National Police of 21 December 1999 (annex 25), in its article 10 incorporated the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. That international instrument, amongst other aspects, establishes that in the performance of their duty, law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons. It establishes also that no law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor invoke superior orders or special circumstances, such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification for such acts. 
Peru, Fourth periodic report of Peru to the Committee against Torture, 27 May 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.697, submitted 15 November 2004, § 346.
Peru also stated:
[P]ersons convicted of terrorism as leaders of subversive organizations … are subject to a prison regime which complies with the standards of humanity and dignity of a democratic State governed by the rule of law and by the minimum protection standards recognized by international human rights law and international humanitarian law, which may never be suspended or restricted as far as the protection of personal integrity … [is] concerned. 
Peru, Fourth periodic report of Peru to the Committee against Torture, 27 May 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.697, submitted 15 November 2004, § 108; see also § 146.
Saudi Arabia
In 2004, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Saudi Arabia stated:
Disciplinary proceedings are taken against any civilian or military official who assaults a prisoner or detainee without prejudice to any criminal penalties that may be inflicted if the assault constitutes a criminal offence. 
Saudi Arabia, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 12 November 2004, UN Doc. CRC/C/136/Add.1, 21 April 2005, § 165.
Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated:
Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II] and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include … Article 5 prescribing humane treatment of persons whose liberty ha[s] been restricted … due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, 11 April 2011, § 75.
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
Article 85 entitled “Principle of Humanity”, contained in Title IV on Operations [of the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009)] clearly embodies the spirit of the [1949] Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocols, as it provides that “[the] … conduct [of members of the armed forces] in any conflict or military operation must conform to the applicable rules of the international treaties on international humanitarian law to which Spain is a party”.
That is further developed in Chapter VI on Ethics in Operations, which goes into specific duties under international humanitarian law … the protection of … prisoners, [and] detainees. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
Sri Lanka
In 2009, in its combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, Sri Lanka stated: “The Presidential Directive of 7 July 2006 … instructs the Heads of the Armed Forces and the IGP [Inspector General of Police and] … provides for the protection of fundamental rights of persons arrested or detained and their humane treatment.” 
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, § 45.
Sri Lanka also stated:
24. The President … issued directions to the Armed Forces and Police as the Minister of Defence, in connection with persons arrested and detained. The President has directed these institutions to respect the fundamental rights of the persons arrested and to treat such persons humanely and has given these directions … regarding the rules and regulations concerning Arrest, Detention and Interrogation on 7 July 2006.
26. In the Supreme Court Fundamental Rights Applications 73, 74, 75, 76 of 2002, the Supreme Court directed the Police to be vigilant when they detain suspects in … [p]olice custody and to provide them with … human[e] conditions and treatment in place[s] of detention. …
29. In addition, under “Directions Issued by the President Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and Minister of Defence” on 7 July 2006, it is provided that “Every member of the Armed Forces and the Police Force shall … ensure that the fundamental rights of persons arrested or detained are respected.” 
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, Annex, §§ 24, 26 and 29; see also § 18 of the report.
[footnote in original omitted]
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 is aimed not only at states. It also contains numerous provisions for individuals and even civilians to observe. Perhaps the most well known example is Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, according to which persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed “hors de combat” by … detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated human[e]ly, without violence to life and person, in particular mutilation, torture and cruel treatment. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.1, p. 46.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
3.4 [Increasing use] of anti-guerrilla tactics
Apart from the direct fight against insurgents, international humanitarian law also addresses other anti-guerrilla tactics. … If members of militias or opposition groups fall into the hands of the government they benefit from the protection of art. 75 of [1977] Additional Protocol I as well as that of art. 3 common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions. They must thus be treated humanely. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.4, p. 15.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, which stated: “Persons who are not or no longer taking part in the hostilities must be treated humanely without any discrimination. This is especially important in the case of detainees.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, Press Release, 15 November 2012.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
British Embassy staff in Kabul are in frequent contact with the ICRC, which monitors closely the situation and welfare of all prisoners in Afghanistan. However, the ICRC cannot provide full reports.
We are concerned about reported conditions in prisons across Afghanistan and have made clear to the Afghan Transitional Administration, which includes former Northern Alliance members, that we expect them, as the responsible authority for prisoners in Afghanistan, to respect their international obligations. This includes treating their prisoners humanely and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and international human rights law. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 14 January 2003, Vol. 643, Written Answers, col. WA10.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister replied to a question by a Member:
Mr. John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): The Prime Minister will soon meet President Bush. Will he tell the President that the whole House deplores the degrading and demeaning treatment of US prisoners, servicemen and servicewomen? Will he also tell him that we expect the terms of the Geneva convention to extend to every prisoner, irrespective of nationality or location?
The Prime Minister: We will obviously ensure that any Iraqi prisoners are treated by us in accordance with the Geneva convention. If my hon. Friend is referring to Guantanamo bay – if that is the purpose of his question – I must tell him that those people are not the combat troops of a Government. As I have said before, however, it is important for them to be treated with dignity and for their human rights to be respected.
We have visited the British nationals in Guantanamo bay many times, and have investigated each allegation of abuse of their human rights, but let me say this to my hon. Friend. There is still information that is checked with people in Guantanamo bay that is of vital significance to protecting people in Europe. I am afraid that that is simply the reality of the situation, although, as I have said before, it cannot continue indefinitely: I agree that, at some point, it will have to come to an end.
As for what my hon. Friend said about the Iraqi treatment of American prisoners of war, I will certainly convey that message. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 26 March 2003, Vol. 402, Debates, cols. 288–289.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a reply to a written question in the House of Commons asking whether the UK Foreign Secretary had “called for the status of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay to be decided by a tribunal”, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
Although the Foreign Secretary has not called for a tribunal to decide the detainees’ status, he has raised the issue of the detainees with Colin Powell several times, most recently on 23 January. Officials are in frequent contact.
We have made clear that whatever their status the detainees are entitled to humane treatment and, if prosecuted, a fair trial. We have been encouraging the US to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees. We shall continue to do so. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 2 April 2003, Vol. 402, Written Answers, cols. 741W–742W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated:
My Lords, I repeat what I said a few minutes ago that captured Iraqis will be given prisoner of war status until they are proved otherwise and they will be treated according to our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Captured Iraqi forces are likely to be prisoners of war unless they conceal weapons in the conduct of operations, in which case, as the noble Lord will know, they are unlawful combatants. Although unlawful combatants do not have prisoner of war status, we would have a duty, under international humanitarian law, which we would fulfil, to treat prisoners in a reasonable and humane manner. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 3 April 2003, Vol. 646, Debates, col. 1472.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a reply to a written question in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for Defence wrote: “Any individuals captured or detained by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces in the Gulf will be afforded the appropriate status and enjoy the protection afforded by the Geneva Convention.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Defence, Hansard, 7 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 10W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to oral questions in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have long made plain that they will act in conformity with international law. The taking of prisoners of war is a recognised and legitimate means of reducing an enemy’s strength and fighting capacity. Iraqi military personnel who fall into the hands of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces are prisoners of war and therefore will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply from the Minister. However, perhaps I may ask him about the position of those who are known as “unlawful combatants” and who may be paramilitaries of one form or another. Does the Minister agree that those people fall under Article 5 of the third Geneva Convention, to which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a signatory, and should therefore, as in the first Gulf War, be brought before a competent tribunal to determine their status? Can the Minister assure us that neither POWs [prisoners of war] nor this group of people will in any circumstances be sent to Guantanamo Bay?
Lord Bach: My Lords, if such people are taken into the custody of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland forces, they will be treated under the terms of humanitarian law and will of course be looked after both humanely and safely. If they are passed on to another coalition partner – for example, the United States – to be guarded, then an arrangement is in place between the coalition forces that the following will happen. First, there will be no transfer outside the borders of Iraq without the consent of the detaining power, which will in those circumstances be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, jurisdiction will be exclusive to the detaining power – at least for events that occurred before their first detention. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness suggests, where there is any doubt about their status – sometimes there may be no doubt about it either way – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland may well have to convene tribunals. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statements by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 8 April 2003, Vol. 647, Debates, col. 132.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a reply to a written question in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, wrote:
Under the Geneva Convention, treatment of prisoners taken during hostilities is a matter for the Detaining Power. We will adhere to our obligations under the Geneva Convention towards all prisoners we capture. We are confident that the United States will do likewise. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 10 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 352W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a reply to a written question in the House of Lords, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, wrote:
The assessment of the status of the detainees is a matter for the US, as the detaining power. We have, however, discussed the detainees’ status with the US authorities. They have told us that they do not consider any of the British detainees to be entitled to prisoner of war status. The US authorities have assured us that the detainees are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.
Whatever their status, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment and if prosecuted, a fair trial. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 14 July 2003, Vol. 651, Written Answers, cols. WA74–WA75.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, instructions to treat prisoners and detainees in accordance with the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, stated:
All British forces personnel in Iraq have the authority to detain persons who pose a threat to their safety or security and are, therefore, briefed in prisoner handling. This includes guidance that prisoners should be treated, at all times, fully in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 29 June 2004, Vol. 663, Written Answers, col. WA15.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the occupation of Iraq and compliance with international humanitarian law, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
All UK military personnel deploying to Iraq receive an aide-mémoire card on the law of armed conflict which clearly states that prisoners, detainees and civilians must be treated with dignity and respect, and must not in any way be subject to abuse, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 30 June 2004, Vol. 663, Written Answers, col. WA35.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning “the document issued to service personnel announcing the ban on the use of hoods for Iraqi prisoners”, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated:
An amended Standard Operating Instruction on the Policy for Apprehending, Handling and Processing Detainees and Internees was issued on 30 September 2003. The following section of the document contains the relevant information.
a. Apprehended individuals are to be treated at all times fairly, humanely and with respect for his or her personal dignity;
b. Apprehended individuals are to be protected from danger and the elements;
c. Apprehended individuals are not to be kept in direct sunlight for long periods;
d. Medical care is to be provided if required;
e. Food and water are to be provided as necessary, having regard to any national, ethnic or religious dietary requirements;
f. Physical and mental torture, corporal punishment, humiliating or degrading treatment, or the threat of such, is prohibited;
g. The use of hooding and stress positions are prohibited;
h. Females are to be segregated from males;
i. Juveniles (under 15) are to be segregated from other apprehended individuals unless to do so would impose solitary confinement on the individual; and
j. It is a command responsibility to ensure that all apprehended individuals are treated in accordance with these principles. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 7 July 2004, Vol. 423, Written Answers, col. 721W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, measures to ensure respect for the prohibition on torture and other forms of ill-treatment in Iraq, the UK Minister of State for Defence stated:
Members of the United Kingdom armed forces are liable under both UK and international law for their conduct while on operations in Iraq. As such, military personnel are fully informed of their responsibilities and obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law, not only through training received prior to deployment, but also through specific Standard Operating Procedures. All UK military personnel deploying to Iraq receive an Aide Memoire card on the Law of Armed Conflict, which clearly states that prisoners, detainees and civilians must be treated with dignity and respect, and must not in any way be subject to abuse, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Defence, Hansard, 15 July 2004, Vol. 423, Written Answers, col. 1236W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The British Government’s view is that, whatever the status of the so-called global war on terror, the detainees at Guantanamo are entitled to humane treatment ... We have made that clear to the United States authorities … In private diplomatic discussions, at both ministerial and official levels, the UK has made its views known to the US Government and has made representations to them about the circumstances in which, and conditions under which, detainees are held at Guantanamo. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 22 May 2006, Vol. 446, Debates, cols. 1307–1308.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning sharing intelligence with States that permit torture, the UK Foreign Secretary wrote: “… our intelligence agencies routinely seek assurances from foreign liaison services on humane treatment of detainees.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Foreign Secretary, Hansard, 3 December 2007, Written Answers, col. 1064W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2010, the UK Secretary of State for Defence set out the Ministry of Defence Strategic Detention Policy, stating:
1.2 This Policy Statement, which is to be observed whenever UK Armed Forces undertake detention in an operation theatre, reflects the importance which I attach to ensuring the humane treatment of those it is necessary to detain in the course of our operations.
1.3 This is essential to ensure that we uphold our international obligations, to promote the legitimacy of an operation internationally and amongst the British public and to maximise support within the country where operations take place. …
2.1 This policy applies across the MOD and the Armed Forces and to all detention activities undertaken in military theatres of operation. It sets out the minimum standards which must be applied. All members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees and others (including contractors) who are involved with operational detention must comply with it. …
3.1 I require the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces to:
b. Ensure that all Detained Persons held by UK Armed Forces are treated humanely at all times, in accordance with applicable host state law, international law and UK law;
c. As a minimum, without prejudice to the legal status of a Detained Person, apply the standards articulated in Common Article 3 to the [1949] Geneva Conventions. Where other standards are applicable they must be applied;
d. Ensure that the UK provides (as far as practicable in the operational circumstances) a safe and secure environment for Detained Persons;
i. Ensure that procedures are in place to investigate any allegations of abuse of detained persons by UK Forces promptly and effectively and to alert the host nation or relevant coalition partners to any allegations made to the UK of abuse by coalition partners or the host nation forces, so that an investigation can be conducted by the relevant authorities, alerting other detaining nations appropriately.
4.5 Intelligence collection is an important part of detention. It is governed by separate policy and oversight arrangements. However, the minimum standards set out in this policy apply equally to periods of intelligence collection during detention. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Strategic Detention Policy, Policy Statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, March 2010, §§ 1.2–1.3, 2.1, 3.1(b)–(d) and (i) and 4.5.
[footnotes in original omitted]
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2010, in its closing submissions to the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him by UK armed forces in Iraq in 2003, the UK Ministry of Defence stated: “The Ministry of Defence is wholly committed to the humane treatment of captured persons … and to ensuring that practical and effective systems are in place to prevent a recurrence of abuse such as that which led to the death of Baha Mousa.” 
Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Module 4, 3 November 2010, § 1.
The Ministry of Defence also stated: “Art. 10(1) ICCPR [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] imposes a duty to treat detainees with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity but again this says nothing that is not already provided for in IHL.” 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, § 74, p. 63.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2010, the UK Army Inspector examined and assessed the implementation of policy, training and conduct of detainee handling by UK armed forces on operations. The Final Report by the Army Inspector states:
22. In 1972 the UK Government prohibited the use of 5 techniques (wall-standing; hooding; subjection to noise; sleep deprivation; deprivation of food and drink) as an aid to interrogation. … [E]arly in its work the Review identified that although the prohibition of those five techniques was clearly set out in JDP [Joint Doctrine Publication] 1-10, it was not set out clearly and unambiguously in the Tactical and Individual Aide Memoires; a reprint for the forces deploying to Operation HERRICK 12 [in Afghanistan] from April 2010 now does set them out in such terms. Similarly, although the Army Field Manual states the need to treat any captured persons lawfully with no inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment of anyone, and that “Under no circumstances may hoods or sandbags over the head be used on detainees”, it does not specify the other four techniques; this will be addressed during the next revision of the Manual, but in the meantime clear direction is provided by JDP 1-10, PJHQ SOI [Permanent Joint Headquarters Standard Operating Instruction] J3-9 and the aide-memoires …
23. The Review noted that the aide-memoires also did not specify the prohibition on “trophy” photographs of detained persons. That, too, has been corrected in the latest versions.
24. Notwithstanding the absence of specific reminders in the previous editions of aide-memoires, the Review has found that these prohibitions are clearly and fully covered in training. …
28. … The current MOD Policy on Tactical Questioning and Interrogation refers explicitly to the prohibited 5 techniques which are reiterated as techniques that are expressly and explicitly forbidden as an aid to interrogation.  
United Kingdom, Army Inspectorate Review into the Implementation of Policy, Training and Conduct of Detainee Handling, Final Report by the Army Inspector, File Ref. CGS/ArmyInsp/DH/01, 15 July 2010, §§ 22–24, pp. 13–14, and § 28, p. 15; see also § 6, p. 9.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The report also states:
30. In its discussions with deployed personnel, the Review has identified two areas in which some individuals were uncertain as to the policy to be followed: [One area concerns] their responsibilities when mentoring Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) as to the conduct of the members of those forces with respect to detained persons …
a. SOI [Standard Operating Instruction] J3-9 states that “ANSF working alongside UK forces are, wherever possible, to take the lead in detention operations and the role of UK forces should be to ensure that there is a safe and secure environment in which such operations can take place and to assist if necessary”. It further states that “if it is believed that an ANSF detainee will be mistreated or that the ANSF are unable to safely and correctly facilitate the detention process, the detainee is to be processed by the [Temporary Holding Facility/Detainee Transfer Facility] staff in accordance with normal procedures. UK personnel should take control of the detainee and then carry out action in accordance with [the SOI]”. Nevertheless, UK personnel recognise that they are partnering Afghans within the latter’s sovereign state, and that they need to maintain a good working relationship with those partners. Although PJHQ [Permanent Joint Headquarters] explained to the Review that their guidance is that where an issue cannot be resolved face-to-face for whatever reason then soldiers should raise their concerns up the UK chain of command, the Review found that there is uncertainty in some soldiers’ minds over whether to impose perceived western standards; whether to intervene at the time where they perceive Afghans to be treating a detainee inappropriately; or whether to report any such incident to be addressed higher in the chain of command. It is recommended that PJHQ should examine whether there is a need to provide clearer guidance for such situations. 
United Kingdom, Army Inspectorate Review into the Implementation of Policy, Training and Conduct of Detainee Handling, Final Report by the Army Inspector, File Ref. CGS/ArmyInsp/DH/01, 15 July 2010, § 30(a), p. 15.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
The US Directives on the Combined Screening of Detainees in Viet Nam issued in 1967 stated: “Detainees are entitled to humane treatment in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.” 
United States, Military Assistance Command, Viet Nam, Directive No. 381-46, Military Intelligence: Combined Screening of Detainees, 27 December 1967.
United States of America
An instruction card issued to all US troops engaged in Viet Nam directed soldiers always to treat prisoners humanely, adding: “All persons in your hands, whether suspects, civilians, or combat captives, must be protected against violence, insults, curiosity, and reprisals of any kind.” 
United States, The enemy in your hands, Reproduction of 3x5 instruction card issued to all troops, Major General G. S. Prugh, Law at War: Vietnam 1964–1973, Department of the Army, Vietnam Studies, 1975, Appendix H.
United States of America
In 1991, in a diplomatic note to Iraq concerning operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated: “Iraqi prisoners of war will not be mistreated and will be provided humane and safe detention.” 
United States, Department of State, Diplomatic Note to Iraq, Washington, 19 January 1991, annexed to Letter dated 21 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, 21 January 1991, UN Doc. S/22122, Annex I, p. 2.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, “Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II] reflect general US policy on treatment of persons in the power of an adverse party in armed conflicts governed by common Article 3” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The report also states: “It is the opinio juris of the US that persons detained in connection with an internal armed conflict are entitled to humane treatment as specified in Articles 4, 5 and 6 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol II].” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.3.
United States of America
In August 2003, the US State Department issued a written response to an opinion issued by the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), dated 8 May 2003, that had referred to a UNCHR Working Group report on Arbitrary Detention, dated 8 January 2003, which was critical of US policy regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In disagreeing with the UNCHR reports, and noting that the competence of the Working Group did not extend to the laws and customs of war, the State Department stated:
Notwithstanding the fact that the detainees at Guantanamo are unlawful enemy combatants, the Armed Forces of the United States are “treating and will continue to treat [the detainees] humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the [Geneva Convention] … The detainees will not be subjected to physical or mental abuse or cruel treatment.” See White House Fact Sheet, Feb. 7, 2002, at 1–2. 
United States, State Department, Response to UNCHR Opinion No. 5/2003 of 8 May 2003 and the Communication of 8 January 2003 of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, August 2003.
United States of America
In May 2004, Major General Antonio M. Taguba completed his report of an investigation, ordered by the Commander Coalition Forces Land Component Command, into allegations of detainee abuse and maltreatment by members of the 800th Military Police Brigade at Abu Ghraib Prison (Baghdad Central Confinement Facility (BCCF)). The report’s conclusion stated:
Several US Army Soldiers have committed egregious acts and grave breaches of international law at Abu Ghraib/BCCF and Camp Bucca, Iraq. Furthermore, key senior leaders in both the 800th MP Brigade and the 205th MI Brigade failed to comply with established regulations, policies, and command directives in preventing detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) and at Camp Bucca during the period August 2003 to February 2004.
Approval and implementation of the recommendations of this AR 15-6 Investigation and those highlighted in previous assessments are essential to establish the conditions with the resources and personnel required to prevent future occurrences of detainee abuse. 
United States, Department of Defense, Commander Coalition Forces Land Component Command, Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade (Taguba Report), May 2004.
United States of America
In May 2004, the US Secretary of Defense together with other senior military and civilian defence personnel, appeared before The House Armed Services Committee, following the public revelations of detainee abuse by US service personnel at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In his testimony, the Secretary of Defense stated:
[W]e moved in a very, very positive way very quickly, and we’ve got a pretty good handle on it. We, as we mobilize soldiers or deploy soldiers are putting specific emphasis on the Geneva Convention – The Hague and Geneva Conventions, the Law of Land Warfare. In our combat training centers we’re dealing specifically with the proper procedures and treatment of detainees from the point of capture all the way through the system to the point of detention.
And I can assure you this is receiving our very, very strong attention.
Following a question from a member of the Committee regarding the humane treatment of detainees, the Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, stated:
Preliminary findings indicate that leaders and soldiers are aware of the requirement and expectation to treat detainees humanely and that it is their duty to report incidents of abuse. To date, the majority of the abuse cases indicate the underlying cause has been two-fold: an individual failure to adhere to basic standards of discipline, training and Army values; and leadership failures to provide oversight and enforce standards. 
United States, Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, Transcript of Testimony given before The House Armed Services Committee, 7 May 2004.
United States of America
On 25 May 2004, the US Secretary of Defense directed the Naval Inspector General, Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, III, to conduct a comprehensive review of Department of Defense interrogation operations. This direction followed revelations of detainee abuse in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Admiral Church submitted his report in March 2005. Its conclusion included the following statement:
It bears emphasis that the vast majority of detainees held by the U.S. in the Global War on Terror have been treated humanely, and that the overwhelming majority of U.S. personnel have served honorably. For those few who have not, there is no single, overarching explanation. While authorized interrogation techniques have not been a causal factor in detainee abuse, we have nevertheless identified a number of missed opportunities in the policy development process. We cannot say that there would necessarily have been less detainee abuse had these opportunities been acted upon. These are opportunities, however, that should be considered in the development of future interrogation policies. 
United States, Department of Defense, Review of Department of Defense Detention Operations and Detainee Interrogation Techniques (The Church Report), 7 March 2005.
United States of America
In 2005, in its second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, the United States stated that “the commitment of the United States to treat detainees humanely is clear and well documented”. 
United States, Second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 13 January 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/48/Add.3/Rev.1, submitted 6 May 2005, Annex 1, p. 48, § 2.
(footnote in original omitted)
United States of America
In 2005, the US Department of Defense (DoD) released a report of an investigation, dated 1 April 2005 (as amended 9 June 2005), commissioned by the Commander US Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) and conducted by Lieutenant General R.M. Schmidt and Brigadier General J.T. Furlow into FBI allegations of detainee abuse at the US Detention Facility, Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Executive Summary of the report stated:
Detention and interrogation operations at Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) cover a three-year period and over 24,000 interrogations. This AR 15-6 [Army Regulation 15-6: Procedures for Investigating Officers and Boards of Officers, dated 30 September 1996] investigation found only three interrogation acts in violation of interrogation techniques authorized by Army Field Manual 34-52 [Intelligence Interrogation] and DoD guidance. The AR 15-6 also found that the Commander of JTF-GTMO failed to monitor the interrogation of one high value detainee in late 2002. The AR 15-6 found that the interrogation of this same high value detainee resulted in degrading and abusive treatment but did not rise to the level of being inhumane treatment. Finally, the AR 15-6 found that the communication of a threat to another high value detainee was in violation of SECDEF [US Secretary Department of Defense] guidance and the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. The AR 15-6 found no evidence of torture or inhumane treatment at JTF-GTMO. 
United States, Department of Defense, Commander United States Southern Command, Investigation into FBI Allegations of Detainee Abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Detention Facility, 1 April 2005 (as amended 9 June 2005).
United States of America
In June 2006, the US Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs participated in a media roundtable, at which he announced the launch of a Defense Department policy document addressing medical program support for detainees, entitled “Medical Program Support for Detainee Operations”. In doing so, he stated:
[H]umane treatment has, and always been, remains the standard for detainees’ care and treatment. All health care personnel, regardless of their role, have a duty to comply with the law and to uphold humane treatment of detainees and to report known or suspected violations … [H]ealth care personnel, regardless of their role, are not to supervise, direct or conduct interrogations. 
United States, Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Transcript, Media Roundtable with Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, William Winkenwerder, 7 June 2006.
United States of America
In July 2006, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum to senior military and civilian personnel in the Department of Defense (DoD) on the subject of common Article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and its application to the treatment of detainees:
The Supreme Court Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557, 29 June 2006] has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court found that the military commissions as constituted by the Department of Defense are not consistent with Common Article 3.
It is my understanding that, aside from the military commission procedures, existing DoD orders, policies, directives, execute orders, and doctrine comply with the standards of Common Article 3 … In addition, you will recall the President’s prior directive [President George W. Bush, Memorandum, Humane Treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees, 7 February 2002] that “the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely,” humane treatment being the overarching requirement of Common Article 3.
You will ensure that all DoD personnel adhere to these standards. In this regard, I request that you promptly review all relevant directives, regulations, policies, practices and procedures under your purview to ensure that they comply with the standards of Common Article 3. 
United States, Department of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, Memorandum, Application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to the Treatment of Detainees in the Department of Defense, 7 July 2006.
United States of America
In September 2006, the US President spoke before an invited audience at the White House to announce the creation of new military commissions to try suspected terrorists, during which he also announced the transfer of 14 detainees from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detention program (thus publicly revealing that such a program existed) into military custody:
I’m announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.
These men will be held in a high-security facility at Guantanamo. The International Committee of the Red Cross is being advised of their detention, and will have the opportunity to meet with them. Those charged with crimes will be given access to attorneys who will help them prepare their defense – and they will be presumed innocent. While at Guantanamo, they will have access to the same food, clothing, medical care, and opportunities for worship as other detainees. They will be questioned subject to the new U.S. Army Field Manual, which the Department of Defense is issuing today. And they will continue to be treated with the humanity that they denied others.
I know Americans have heard conflicting information about Guantanamo. Let me give you some facts. Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantanamo. Of these, about 315 have been returned to other countries so far – and about 455 remain in our custody. They are provided the same quality of medical care as the American service members who guard them. The International Committee of the Red Cross has the opportunity to meet privately with all who are held there. The facility has been visited by government officials from more than 30 countries, and delegations from international organizations, as well. After the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe came to visit, one of its delegation members called Guantanamo “a model prison” where people are treated better than in prisons in his own country.
Some may ask: Why are you acknowledging this [CIA] program now? There are two reasons why I’m making these limited disclosures today. First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men – and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open. Second, the Supreme Court’s recent decision [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006)] has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as “Common Article Three” applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity” and “humiliating and degrading treatment.” The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act – simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.
This is unacceptable. Our military and intelligence personnel go face to face with the world’s most dangerous men every day. They have risked their lives to capture some of the most brutal terrorists on Earth. And they have worked day and night to find out what the terrorists know so we can stop new attacks. America owes our brave men and women some things in return. We owe them their thanks for saving lives and keeping America safe. And we owe them clear rules, so they can continue to do their jobs and protect our people.
So today, I’m asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I’m asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act – so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I’m asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America’s obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I’m asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts – in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they’re doing their jobs. 
United States, President George W. Bush, White House speech, President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists, 6 September 2006.
United States of America
In February 2008, in a statement on the US Department of Justice’s legal review of the CIA programme of detention and interrogation before the House Committee on the Judiciary Sub-Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, stated:
The CIA program is now operated in accordance with the President’s executive order of July 20th, 2007, which was issued pursuant to the Military Commissions Act [2006]. The President’s executive order requires that the CIA program comply with a host of substantive and procedural requirements.
… [T]he executive order makes clear that the program must be very narrow in scope, to include only those high-value terrorist detainees believed to possess critical knowledge of potential attack planning or the whereabouts of senior al Qaeda leadership. All detainees in the program must be afforded the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and shelter and essential medical care; they must be protected from extremes in temperature … The Director of the CIA must have rules and procedures in place to ensure compliance with the executive order, and he must personally approve each individual plan of interrogation before it is implemented.. 
United States, Statement by the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, before the House Committee on the Judiciary Sub-Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, 14 February 2008, pp. 4–5.
United States of America
In August 2009, in a speech made in Washington DC on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the US White House Counsel stated:
[T]hanks to Common Article III [to the 1949 Geneva Conventions], the UN Convention Against Torture, the Constitution of the United States, the American judiciary and, most recently, the American electorate, one thing is now certain: individuals taken into custody by the United States must, as a matter of U.S. law, be treated humanely. 
United States, Remarks by the White House Counsel on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, The Newseum, Washington DC, 12 August 2009.
United States of America
In November 2009, in a statement marking the 60th Anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the legal adviser of the US Department of State stated:
As everyone here is aware, the relationship between the United States and the Geneva Conventions has been the subject of much international commentary since September 11, 2001 … Today, it is clear that individuals taken into custody by the United States must, as a matter of law, be treated humanely. The entire United States Government has worked to achieve this result, which is true to the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions.  
United States, Statement by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, at a conference marking the 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, Geneva, 9 November 2009.
United States of America
In March 2010, in a speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, the legal adviser of the US Department of State stated:
With respect to detention, as you know, the last Administration’s detention practices were widely criticized around the world, and as a private citizen, I was among the vocal critics of those practices. This Administration and I personally have spent much of the last year seeking to revise those practices to ensure their full compliance with domestic and international law, first, by unequivocally guaranteeing humane treatment for all individuals in U.S. custody as a result of armed conflict. 
United States, “The Obama Administration and International Law”, Speech by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington DC, 25 March 2010.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In November 2010, in responding to the recommendations made by the Working Group of the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of US human rights records, the US State Department’s Legal Adviser stated:
Most of these recommendations referred to our country’s continuing armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against Al Qaeda and associated forces. The Obama Administration abides by all applicable law in these armed conflicts, including laws respecting humane treatment [and] detention. 
United States, Statement by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, before the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, 9 November 2010, p. 2.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In a statement in 1991, the Federal Executive Council of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia reiterated: “It is essential … to ensure humane treatment of all detainees and particularly of the participants in the armed conflicts who surrender.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Statement by the Federal Executive Council regarding the Need for Respect for the Norms of International Humanitarian Law in the Armed Conflicts in Yugoslavia, Belgrade, 31 October 1991.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council demanded that “the Bosnian Serb party respect fully the rights of [all persons detained against their will]”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1010, 10 August 1995, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0; see also Res. 1019, 9 November 1995, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council called upon the Government of Rwanda to take further steps to resolve the humanitarian problems in its prisons. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1011, 16 August 1995, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly urged that “combatants in all armed conflicts not covered by Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III be accorded the same humane treatment defined by the principles of international law applied to POWs [prisoners of war]”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2676 (XXV), 9 December 1970, § 5, voting record: 67-30-20-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on El Salvador, the UN General Assembly, considering that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II were applicable, recommended that the Special Representative report on the observance of rules pertaining to the humanitarian treatment of and respect for prisoners of war. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 40/139, 13 December 1985, § 3, voting record: 100-2-42-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution on El Salvador adopted in 1986, the UN General Assembly, considering that common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II were applicable, recommended that the Special Representative report on the observance of rules pertaining to the humanitarian treatment of and respect for prisoners of war. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 41/157, 4 December 1986, § 4, voting record: 110-0-40-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed concern that “thousands of Palestinians continue to be held in Israeli prisons or detention centres under harsh conditions that impair their well-being”. The General Assembly also expressed concern about “the ill-treatment and harassment of any Palestinian prisoners and all reports of torture”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 149-7-22-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed concern that “thousands of Palestinians continue to be held in Israeli prisons or detention centres under harsh conditions that impair their well-being”. The General Assembly also expressed concern about “the ill-treatment and harassment of any Palestinian prisoners and all reports of torture”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 148-7-17--19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern that “thousands of Palestinians, included children and women, continue to be held in Israeli prisons or detention centres under harsh conditions that impair their well-being”. The General Assembly also expressed concern about “the ill treatment and harassment of any of the Palestinian prisoners and all reports of torture”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 157-9-14-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Opposes any form of deprivation of liberty that amounts to placing a detained person outside the protection of the law, and urges States to respect the safeguards concerning the liberty, security and dignity of the person and to treat all prisoners in all places of detention in accordance with international law, including human rights law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/171, 19 December 2006, § 8, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN General Assembly:
Welcoming the universal ratification of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which alongside human rights law provide an important framework of accountability in relation to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions during armed conflict,
6. Also urges all States to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are treated humanely and with full respect for their human rights and to ensure that their treatment, including judicial guarantees, and conditions conform to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and, where applicable, to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977 in relation to all persons detained in armed conflict, as well as to other pertinent international instruments. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/173, 19 December 2006, preamble and § 6, voting record: 137-0-43-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern that “thousands of Palestinians, included children and women, continue to be held in Israeli prisons or detention centres under harsh conditions that impair their well-being”. The General Assembly also expressed concern about “the ill treatment and harassment of any of the Palestinian prisoners and all reports of torture”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 156-7-11-18.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Opposes any form of deprivation of liberty that amounts to placing a detained person outside the protection of the law, and urges States to respect the safeguards concerning the liberty, security and dignity of the person and to treat all prisoners in all places of detention in accordance with international law, including human rights law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/159, 18 December 2007, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on technical assistance for implementing the international conventions and protocols related to terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Recognizes the importance of the development and maintenance of fair and effective criminal justice systems, including the humane treatment of all those in pretrial and correctional facilities, in accordance with applicable international law as a fundamental basis of any strategy to counter terrorism.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/172, 18 December 2007, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on technical assistance for implementing international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, ECOSOC recommended to the UN General Assembly that it adopt a draft resolution that:
Recognizes the importance of the development and maintenance of fair and effective criminal justice systems, including the humane treatment of all those in pretrial and correctional facilities, in accordance with applicable international law as a fundamental basis of any strategy to counter terrorism. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2007/18, 26 July 2007, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1980 in the context of the conflict in Kampuchea, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged the parties to treat humanely enemy combatants who surrendered or who were captured. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 29 (XXXVI), 11 March 1980, § 5, voting record: 20-4-6.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights demanded that all parties treat their prisoners according to the recognized principles of IHL and protect them from acts of violence, including ill-treatment. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1989/67, 8 March 1989, § 11, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1990 on Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged “all parties to the conflict to respect the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, … to protect all prisoners from acts of reprisals and violence, including ill-treatment, torture and summary execution”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1990/53, 6 March 1990, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1991 on Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged “all parties to the conflict to respect the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, … to protect all prisoners from acts of reprisals and violence, including ill-treatment, torture and summary execution”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1991/78, 6 March 1991, § 6, adopted without a vote;
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged “all parties to the conflict to respect the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, … to protect all prisoners from acts of reprisals and violence, including ill-treatment, torture and summary execution”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/68, 4 March 1992, § 6, adopted without a vote
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1991 in the context of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned Iraq for not treating prisoners of war and detained civilians according to recognized IHL principles and insisted that it abstain from acts of violence against them, including ill-treatment. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1991/67, 6 March 1991, § 5, voting record: 41-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1991 in the context of the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned Iraq for its failure to treat prisoners of war and detained civilians according to recognized IHL principles and insisted that it refrain from subjecting them to acts of violence, including ill-treatment. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/60, 3 March 1992, § 3, voting record: 47-1-1.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Commission Human Rights:
Appeals to all States to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and that conditions in places of detention conform to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and, where applicable, to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977 in relation to the treatment of prisoners in armed conflicts, as well as to other pertinent international instruments. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/53, 24 April 2003, § 10, voting record: 37-0-16.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Appeals to all States to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and that conditions in places of detention conform to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and, where applicable, to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977 in relation to the treatment of prisoners in armed conflicts, as well as to other pertinent international instruments. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/37, 19 April 2004, § 11, voting record: 39-0-12.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Appeals to all States to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and that conditions in places of detention conform to the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and, where applicable, to the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949, and the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977 in relation to the treatment of prisoners in armed conflicts, as well as to other pertinent international instruments. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/34, 19 April 2005, § 11, voting record: 36-0-17.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1992, in a report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights noted that the field commanders who were members of the nation-wide Shura (Council) stated that they would treat their prisoners humanely. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/33, 17 February 1992, § 51.
League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the follow-up of the Intifada’s developments, the Council of the League of Arab States decided “to ask the International Organisations concerned with Human Rights … to treat the prisoners and those put under arrest in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5414, 15 September 1994, § 4.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1965)
The 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 adopted a resolution on the treatment of prisoners of war in which it recognized that “the international community has consistently demanded humane treatment for prisoners of war”. The Conference called upon all authorities involved in an armed conflict “to ensure that every prisoner of war is given the treatment and full measure of protection prescribed by the Geneva Convention of 1949 on the protection of prisoners of war”. 
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October, 1965, Res. XXIV.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1969)
The 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969 adopted a resolution on the protection of prisoners of war in which it recognized that, irrespective of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, “the international community has consistently demanded humane treatment for prisoners of war”. 
21st International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, 6–13 September, 1969, Res. XI.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1969)
The 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969 adopted a resolution on the status of combatants in non-international armed conflicts in which it stated:
Combatants and members of resistance movements who participate in non-international armed conflicts and who conform to the provisions of Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention … should when captured be protected against any inhumanity and brutality and receive treatment similar to that which that Convention lays down for prisoners of war. 
21st International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, 6–13 September 1969, Res. XVIII.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1973)
The 22nd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1973 adopted a resolution on the application of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, II and III in the Middle East in which it called for “the total application” of these conventions by the parties to the conflict, in particular, “those provisions which relate to the treatment of prisoners of war”. 
22nd International Conference of the Red Cross, Teheran, 8–15 November 1973, Res. IV.
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1999)
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that all the parties to an armed conflict take effective measures to ensure that “all persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict are fully respected and protected”. 
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 1(d).
Human Rights Committee
In its General Comment on Article 10 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, the Human Rights Committee held:
Treating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule. Consequently, the application of this rule, as a minimum, cannot be dependent on the material resources available in the State party. This rule must be applied without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 21 (Article 10 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 10 April 1992, § 4.
Human Rights Committee
In its General Comment on Article 4 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2001, the Human Rights Committee held:
In those provisions of the Covenant that are not listed in article 4, paragraph 2, there are elements that in the Committee’s opinion cannot be made subject to lawful derogation under article 4. Some illustrative examples are presented below.
(a) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. Although this right, prescribed in article 10 of the Covenant, is not separately mentioned in the list of non-derogable rights in article 4, paragraph 2, the Committee believes that here the Covenant expresses a norm of general international law not subject to derogation. This is supported by the reference to the inherent dignity of the human person in the preamble to the Covenant and by the close connection between articles 7 and 10. 
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 (Article 4 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 24 July 2001, § 13(a).
Human Rights Committee
In 1982, in Améndola Massiotti and Baritussio v. Uruguay, the Human Rights Committee found:
The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee, in so far as they continued or occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay) disclose the following violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular of:
In the case of Carmen Améndola Massiotti
Articles 7 and 10 (1) [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], because the conditions of her imprisonment amounted to inhuman treatment. 
Human Rights Committee, Améndola Massiotti and Baritussio v. Uruguay, Views, 26 July 1982, § 13.
Human Rights Committee
In Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay in 1983, the Human Rights Committee found that holding a detainee incommunicado for six weeks after arrest was incompatible with the standard of humane treatment required by Article 10(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
Human Rights Committee, Drescher Caldas v. Uruguay, Views, 21 July 1983, § 14.
Human Rights Committee
In Martínez Machado v. Uruguay in 1983, the Human Rights Committee found a violation of Article 10(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the detainee in question, arrested for security reasons, was held incommunicado for more than five months. 
Human Rights Committee, Martínez Machado v. Uruguay, Views, 4 November 1983, p. 148.
Human Rights Committee
In Arzuaga Gilboa v. Uruguay in 1985, the Human Rights Committee found that holding the plaintiff incommunicado for a period of 15 days was a violation of Article 10(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
Human Rights Committee, Arzuaga Gilboa v. Uruguay, Views, 1 November 1985, § 14.
Human Rights Committee
In 1998, in Deidrick v. Jamaica, the Human Rights Committee found:
With regard to the deplorable conditions of detention at St. Catherine’s District Prison, the Committee notes that author’s counsel has made precise allegations, related thereto, i.e. that the author is locked-up in his cell 23 hours a day, no mattress or bedding are provided, that there is lack of artificial light and no integral sanitation, inadequate medical services, deplorable food and no recreational facilities etc. All of this has not been contested by the State party, except in a general manner saying that these conditions affect all prisoners. In the Committee’s opinion, the conditions described above, which affect the author directly are such as to violate his right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and are therefore contrary to the Covenant. It finds that holding a prisoner in such conditions of detention constitutes inhuman treatment in violation of article 10, paragraph 1, and of article 7 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. 
Human Rights Committee, Deidrick v. Jamaica, Views, 9 April 1998, § 9.3.
Human Rights Committee
In Kang v. Republic of Korea in 2003, the Human Rights Committee held:
As to the author’s remaining claims under article 10 [of the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights], the Committee considers that his detention in solitary confinement for a period as long as 13 years, of which more than eight were after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, is a measure of such gravity, and of such fundamental impact on the individual in question, that it requires the most serious and detailed justification. The Committee considers that confinement for such a lengthy period … fails to meet that such particularly high burden of justification, and constitutes at once a violation of article 10, paragraph 1, protecting the inherent dignity of the author, and of paragraph 3, requiring that the essential aim of detention be reformation and social rehabilitation. 
Human Rights Committee, Kang v. Republic of Korea, Views, 23 July 2003, § 7.3.
Human Rights Committee
In Wilson v. Philippines in 2003, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee considers that the conditions of detention described, as well as the violent and abusive behaviour both of certain prison guards and of other inmates, as apparently acquiesced in by the prison authorities, are seriously in violation of the author’s right, as a prisoner, to be treated with humanity and with respect for his inherent dignity, in violation of article 10, paragraph 1 [of the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights]. As at least some of the acts of violence against the author were committed either by the prison guards, upon their instigation or with their acquiescence, there was also a violation of article 7. There is also a specific violation of article 10, paragraph 2, arising from the failure to segregate the author, pre-trial, from convicted prisoners. 
Human Rights Committee, Wilson v. Philippines, Views, 11 November 2003, § 7.3.
Human Rights Committee
In Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2004, the Human Rights Committee stated:
As to the complaint of a violation of articles 7 and 10, paragraph 1, of the [1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights], the Committee notes that the author has given a detailed account of the treatment he was subjected to during his detention, including acts of torture or ill-treatment and, subsequently, the deliberate denial of proper medical attention despite his loss of mobility. Indeed, he has provided a medical certificate attesting to the sequelae of such treatment. Under the circumstances, and in the absence of any counter-argument from the State party, the Committee finds that the author was a victim of multiple violations of article 7 of the Covenant, prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Committee considers that the conditions of detention described in detail by the author also constitute a violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 
Human Rights Committee, Mulezi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Views, 23 July 2004, § 5.3.
Human Rights Committee
In Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon in 2005, the Human Rights Committee reiterated that “persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957)”. 
Human Rights Committee, Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, Views, 10 May 2005, § 5.2.
Human Rights Committee
In Alegre v. Peru in 2005, the Human Rights Committee stated:
2.9 During the first few years of her detention in Chorrillos Maximum Security Prison, even before being convicted, the author was held in a cell 2.5 metres square, shared with five or six persons simultaneously, where she remained all day except for half an hour in the yard. During her periods in the yard she could not talk to other inmates. She did not have access to reading and writing materials. Her visiting rights were restricted to two immediate relatives per month for a total of 30 minutes in multi-person visiting rooms and without physical contact. The food was inadequate. As a result of all of this she had health problems and began to suffer from bruxism, facial paralysis, dermatitis, aggravated myopia, bronchial symptoms, etc.
7.4 The author contends that the regime of deprivation of liberty applied to her under Decree-Law No. 25475 constitutes a violation of article 10 of the [1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights]. The Committee considers that the conditions of detention in the Chorrillos Women’s Maximum Security Prison described by the author, particularly those applied during her first year of detention, violated her right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of her person and therefore breached the provisions of article 10 as a whole. 
Human Rights Committee, Alegre v. Peru, Views, 17 November 2005, §§ 2.9 and 7.4,
Human Rights Committee
In Brough v. Australia in 2006, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee recalls that persons deprived of their liberty must not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; respect for the dignity of such persons must be guaranteed under the same conditions as for that of free persons. Inhuman treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to come within the scope of article 10 of the [1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights]. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age, state of health or other status of the victim. 
Human Rights Committee, Brough v. Australia, Views, 27 April 2006, § 9.2.
Human Rights Committee
In Aber v. Algeria in 2007, the Human Rights Committee reiterated that “persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity”. 
Human Rights Committee, Aber v. Algeria, Views, 16 August 2007, § 7.7.
Human Rights Committee
In Benhadj v. Algeria in 2007, the Human Rights Committee reiterated that “persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty; they must be treated in accordance with, inter alia, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners”. 
Human Rights Committee, Benhadj v. Algeria, Views, 26 September 2007, § 8.5.
Human Rights Committee
In El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 2007, the Human Rights Committee reiterated that “persons deprived of their liberty may not be subjected to any hardship or constraint other than that resulting from the deprivation of liberty and that they must be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity”. 
Human Rights Committee, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views, 13 November 2007, § 6.4.
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights
In 1999, in Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria (151/96), the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights stated that “deprivation of light, insufficient food and lack of access to medicine or medical care [of persons deprived of their liberty] also constitute violations of Article 5” of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria (151/96), Decision, 15 November 1999, § 27.
European Commission of Human Rights
In 1969, in the Greek case, the European Commission of Human Rights concluded that accommodation in the Lakki camp violated Article 3 of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights because of “the conditions of gross overcrowding and its consequences”; the dormitories could hold 100 to 150 persons. 
European Commission of Human Rights, Greek case, Report, 5 November 1969, §§ 14 and 21.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In 1980, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended that Argentina
provide humanitarian treatment to those detained for reasons of security or public order, which treatment should in no case be inferior to that given to common prisoners, bearing in mind in both cases the internationally accepted Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Argentina, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.49 Doc. 19, 11 April 1980, Conclusions, Section B, § 8.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Prisoners of war shall be spared and treated humanely.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 496.
ICRC
In an appeal issued in 1979 with respect to the conflict in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the ICRC stated that all parties to the conflict must “give humane treatment to all captured enemy combatants”. 
ICRC, Conflict in Southern Africa: ICRC appeal, 19 March 1979, § 5, IRRC, No. 209, 1979, p. 88.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in the hostilities, such as … prisoners of war …, must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
In an appeal issued in 1991 in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the ICRC enjoined the military and civilian authorities of the parties involved to take all the necessary steps to “treat all captured combatants humanely”. 
ICRC, Appeal in behalf of civilians in Yugoslavia, Geneva, 4 October 1991.
ICRC
In a press release in 1992, the ICRC urged the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh “to ensure that combatants who surrender or who are no longer able to take part in the fighting are treated humanely”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1670, Nagorno-Karabakh: ICRC calls for respect for humanitarian law, 12 March 1992.
ICRC
In a press release in 1992, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina to “treat all captured combatants humanely”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1705, Bosnia and Herzegovina: ICRC calls for protection of civilians, 10 April 1992.
ICRC
In a press release in 1992, the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina to treat captured combatants and any captured civilians humanely, and to instruct all combatants in the field to respect captured persons. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1725, Bosnia and Herzegovina: ICRC issues solemn appeal to all parties to the conflict, 13 August 1992.
ICRC
In a press release in 1992, the ICRC urged all the parties involved in the conflict in Afghanistan to “treat all captured combatants humanely”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1726, Afghanistan: New ICRC appeal for compliance with humanitarian rules 14 August 1992; see also Press Release No. 1712, Afghanistan: ICRC appeal for respect for humanitarian rules, 5 May 1992.
ICRC
In a press release in 1992, the ICRC urged all the parties involved in the conflict in Tajikistan to ensure the protection of civilians and military victims, in compliance with the basic rules of IHL and, in particular, to treat all captured combatants humanely. 
ICRC, Press Release, Tajikistan: ICRC urges respect for humanitarian rules, ICRC Dushanbe, 23 November 1992.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC stated that its delegates in Bosnia and Herzegovina were once more witnessing “blatant violations of the basic principles of international humanitarian law” and cited as an example that “prisoners are not treated humanely”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/16, Bosnia-Herzegovina: The ICRC appeals for humanity, 16 June 1993.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia “to respect and protect all those not or no longer participating in hostilities, such as prisoners” and to “treat all prisoners humanely”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1994 during the non-international conflict in Yemen, the ICRC appealed to the parties to treat persons captured or arrested in connection with the conflict according to the principles and relevant provisions of international humanitarian law. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1775, Yemen: ICRC active on both sides appeals to belligerents, 12 May 1994.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “Persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities, such as … prisoners … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances, regardless of the party to which they belong.” It further stated: “Captured combatants and persons who have laid down their arms no longer represent any danger and must be respected; … subjecting them or threatening to subject them to ill-treatment … is a violation of international humanitarian law at all times.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § II, 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: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in confrontations, such as … prisoners … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances.” It further stated that combatants and other persons who are captured, and those who have laid down their arms, shall not, in particular, be “ill-treated”. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier (eds.), How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1994 regarding the situation in Bihać (Bosnia and Herzegovina), the ICRC appealed to the parties to respect IHL and reminded them that captured combatants must be treated humanely. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1792, Bihać: urgent appeal, 26 November 1994.
ICRC
In a press release in 1994, the ICRC requested all concerned parties to the conflict in Chechnya to treat humanely all captured combatants and civilians detained in connection with the conflict. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1793, Chechnya: ICRC urges respect for humanitarian rules, 28 November 1994.
ICRC
In a press release in 1995, the ICRC appealed to all the parties involved in Turkey’s military operations in northern Iraq “to accord humane treatment to captured combatants and arrested civilians”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1797, ICRC calls for compliance with international law in Turkey and Northern Iraq, 22 March 1995.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 1996, the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in Chechnya to ensure that all captured combatants and civilians were treated humanely. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 96/10, Chechen conflict: ICRC Appeal, 8 March 1996.
Amnesty International
On several occasions in the context of the conflict in Lebanon, Amnesty International called upon both the governmental party and the militias to guarantee the physical safety of all detainees. 
Amnesty International, Annual Report 1984, London, pp. 405–406; Annual Report 1988, London, p. 308; Annual Report 1989, London, p. 298; Annual Report 1991, London, p. 170.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated humanely.” 
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 4(4), IRRC, No. 282, 1991, p. 332.