Practice Relating to Rule 88. Non-Discrimination

International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
In Article I of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, the State Parties declared: “Apartheid is a crime against humanity.” They also stated that: “Inhuman acts resulting from the policies and practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the Convention, are crimes violating the principles of international law.” 
International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 3068 (XXVIII), 30 November 1973, Article I.
Additional Protocol I
Article 85(4)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that “practices of apartheid and other inhuman or degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination” shall be regarded as grave breaches of the Protocol. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 85(4)(c). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
ICC Statute
Article 7(1)(j) of the 1998 ICC Statute provides that “the crime of apartheid” constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 7(1)(j).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 20 of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind provides:
1. An individual who as a leader or organizer commits or orders the commission of the crime of apartheid shall, on conviction thereof, be sentenced.
2. Apartheid consists of any of the following acts based on policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination committed for the purpose of establishing or maintaining domination by one racial group over any other racial group and systematically oppressing it:
(a) denial to a member of a racial group of the right to life and liberty of person;
(b) deliberate imposition on a racial group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(c) any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group from participating in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group;
(d) any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines, in particular by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group, the prohibition of marriages among members of various racial groups or the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or to members thereof;
(e) exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
(f) persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 20.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Under Article 18(f) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “institutionalized discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious grounds involving the violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms and resulting in seriously disadvantaging a part of the population” is considered a crime against humanity. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 18(f).
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including crimes against humanity. According to Section 6(1)(j) “the crime of apartheid” constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(j).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states that the practice of apartheid and similar practices are grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.03.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides that “practices of apartheid and other inhumane and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity based on racial discrimination” are a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 17(c).
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, that “practices of apartheid and other inhumane and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity based on racial discrimination” constitute a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.3.c.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “the practice of apartheid and other inhuman, racist practices” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and thus a war crime. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 108; see also pp. 26, 47 and 92.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states that the following “are currently considered as war crimes … if committed against any person not or no longer participating in hostilities: … subjecting the civilian population to apartheid”. 
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. 50.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) quotes Article 7(1)(j) of the 1998 ICC Statute, which defines the crime of apartheid as a crime against humanity. 
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, pp. 32, 51 and 52.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides that “practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices based on racial discrimination” are a grave breach of IHL. 
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, § 1209.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “The practice of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading treatments based on racial discrimination which offends the dignity of the human person is a grave breach of the … [1949 Geneva] conventions and their additional protocols.” 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 85.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “Practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination, are a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-6.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that “practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination”, when committed wilfully, are grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1703.4.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
The term [apartheid] comprises inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.
a. International criminal responsibility applies, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State who, whatever their country of residence, promote apartheid.
b. Apartheid committed during an international armed conflict is a war crime. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, Annex 9, Glossary of Terms.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states in its Glossary of Terms:
The term [apartheid] comprises … inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.
a. International criminal responsibility applies, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State who, whatever their country of residence, promote apartheid.
b. Apartheid committed during an international armed conflict is a war crime. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, p. 394.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that the “practice of apartheid” is prohibited. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(l).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that “segregation and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity based on racial discrimination” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. 
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, § 38(b).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that “carrying out practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices” is a grave breach and is qualified as a war crime. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, División de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(1).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that “practices of apartheid or other inhumane and humiliating treatment based on racial discrimination, implying a serious violation of human dignity”, is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 193(2)(c).
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
1.2.11. “Apartheid” means policy and practice of racial discrimination of certain peoples or ethnic groups.
1.8.5. Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include:
- inhuman treatment accompanied by degrading human dignity, including the practice of apartheid. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.11 and 1.8.5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following:
c. the following, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the protocol:
(3) practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.25.
Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “outrage upon personal self-esteem, based on apartheid or racial discrimination, application of inhuman and other humiliating practices”, during an armed conflict, constitute crimes against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.4(3).
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
War crime – apartheid
A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator commits against one or more persons an act that is a proscribed inhumane act or is of a nature and gravity similar to any proscribed inhumane act; and
(b) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish the character of the act; and
(c) the perpetrator’s conduct is committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups; and
(d) the perpetrator intends to maintain the regime by the conduct; and
(e) the conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.100, p. 372.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates into the Criminal Code the crimes against humanity defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including apartheid. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.22.
In addition, the Act incorporates into the Criminal Code the war crimes that are grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including apartheid. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.100.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides a punishment for the crime of apartheid and inhuman and degrading practices based on racial discrimination. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 111.
Belgium
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides for the punishment of anyone “indulging in practices of apartheid or other inhuman or degrading practices based on racial discrimination and resulting in outrages upon personal dignity”. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3)(19); see also Article 1(2)(8) (crime against humanity).
Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
A crime against humanity, as defined below, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, constitutes a crime under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title. In accordance with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
10. the crime of apartheid. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 ter, § 10.
The Penal Code further states:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :
33. carrying out practices of apartheid and other inhuman or degrading practices based on racial discrimination and involving outrages upon personal dignity. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(33).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
A crime against humanity, as defined below, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, constitutes a crime under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title. In accordance with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
10. the crime of apartheid. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 bis, § 10.
The Law further states:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :
19. carrying out practices of apartheid and other inhuman or degrading practices based on racial discrimination and involving outrages upon personal dignity. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(19).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) criminalizes the following acts as crimes against humanity:
(1) Whoever, as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of such an attack, perpetrates any of the following acts:
j) The crime of apartheid.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph 1 of this Article the following terms shall have the following meanings:
i) The crime of apartheid means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, perpetrated in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and perpetrated with an aim of maintaining that regime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 172(1)(j) and (2)(i).
[emphasis in original]
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, punishes the crime of apartheid and practices based on racial discrimination. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended in 1999, Article 418.
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) lists “the crime of apartheid” as a crime against humanity “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 3(j).
Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the crimes against humanity defined in Article 7 of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, orders or carries out against protected persons practices of racial segregation or other inhuman or degrading practices based on racial discrimination and which result in outrages upon personal dignity”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 147.
Congo
Under the Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998), “crimes of discrimination: tribal, ethnic or religious”, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, are crimes against humanity. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 6.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, provides for the punishment of anyone, who:
… publicly states or disseminates ideas on the superiority or subordination of one race, ethnic or religious community, gender, ethnicity, or ideas on superiority or subordination on the basis of colour for the purpose of spreading racial, religious, sexual, national and ethnic hatred or hatred based on colour or for the purpose of disparagement shall be punished. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 174(3).
The Criminal Code further states that it is a crime against humanity:
[To order] within an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over another racial group or groups that an inhumane act described in this Article be committed or an act similar to any of these offences so as to maintain such a regime (the crime of apartheid). 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 157a.
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes “any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach”. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, provides for the punishment of anyone who carries out practices of apartheid. 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 263(a)(1).
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 165
Crimes against humanity are grave violations of international humanitarian law committed against any civilian population before or during war.
Crimes against humanity are not necessarily linked to the state of war and can be committed not only between persons of different nationality, but even between subjects of the same State.
Article 166
The grave breaches listed hereafter, affecting, by action or omission, the persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, constitute crimes against humanity, repressed according to the provisions of the present Code, without prejudice to more severe penal provisions provided by the ordinary Penal Code:
17. Applying practices of apartheid or other inhuman or degrading practices involving outrages upon human dignity, based on racial discrimination;
Article 167
The offences contained in the preceding article are punished with penal servitude for life.
If those contained in points 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 14 of the same article lead to the death or cause grave injury to the physical integrity or health of one or several persons, the perpetrators are liable to the death penalty. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Articles 165–167.
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).
Georgia
Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999) punishes the carrying out of practices of apartheid or other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(1)(i).
Hungary
Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, punishes anyone who commits the crime of apartheid. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 157.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).
Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “The crime of apartheid and other practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination”. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(17).
Mali
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) states that apartheid is a crime against humanity. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 29(j).
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, it is a crime to commit, in an international armed conflict, “the following acts if committed intentionally and in violation of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol (I): … practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination”. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(2)(d)(iii); see also Article 4(1)(j) (apartheid as a crime against humanity).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides: “Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), crimes against humanity include the crime defined in Article 7(1)(j) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 10(2).
Niger
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, it is a war crime to carry out against persons protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions or their Additional Protocols of 1977 “practices of apartheid or other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity”. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(19).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
Peru
Peru’s Penal Code (1991), as amended in 1998, punishes the carrying out of practices of apartheid. 
Peru, Penal Code, 1991, as amended in 1998, Article 319.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who “commits any of the crimes under Paragraph (1) or (2) [crimes against humanity] with the intent of maintaining an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups”. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 9(2)(8).
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) punishes “grave breaches of international humanitarian law committed during international and non-international armed conflicts”. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 391.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 8
A war crime is one of the following acts, committed during armed conflicts against persons or property protected under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and its Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977:
12° practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;
Article: 9
Shall be punished by one of the following penalties any person having committed one of the war crimes provided for in Article 8 of this law:
2° imprisonment for ten (10) to twenty (20) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 6°, 7°, 8°, 10° or 12° of Article 8 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–9.
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, lists “the crime of apartheid” as a crime against humanity “when committed on the occasion of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population”. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-2(5).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing the “oppression of a racial group or establishing domination of one group over another” in violation of international law constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 371.
The Criminal Code also states: “Whoever propagates ideas of superiority of one race over another or propagates racial intolerance or instigates racial discrimination shall be punished by imprisonment for between three months and three years.” 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 387(3).
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
2. Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977] First [Additional] Protocol.
(1) A person of whatever nationality commits an offence if that person, whether within or outside Sierra Leone[,] commits, aids, abets or procures any other person to commit a grave breach specified in –
(e) … paragraph … 4 of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on, inter alia, the grave breach of practices of “apartheid” and other inhuman or degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination]. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 2(1)(e).
Slovakia
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, provides for the punishment of anyone who carries out practices of apartheid. 
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Article 263(a)(1).
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the crimes against humanity listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including the crime of apartheid. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 2, § 1(j).
South Africa
South Africa’s Implementation of the Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
5. Breach of Conventions and penalties
(1) Any person who, whether within or outside the Republic, commits a grave breach of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions, is guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “a grave breach” means –
(e) a grave breach referred to in Article … 85 of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I. 
South Africa, Implementation of the Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 5(1)–(2)(e).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides for the punishment of anyone who orders or carries out practices of racial segregation or other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 611(6).
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of anyone who orders or carries out practices of apartheid or other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity based on racial discrimination. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a crime against humanity as defined in Articles 7(1)(j) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
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:
29. Committing … apartheid. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.29.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).
Canada
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.” 
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
[T]he essential principles of international humanitarian law have acquired ius cogens status, based on the fact that the international community as a whole has recognised their peremptory and imperative nature in the same way it has recognised this for other cardinal provisions such as … the prohibition of apartheid. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment, 25 April 2007, p. 70.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
United States of America
In 2007, in the Khulumani case before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in which various plaintiff representatives of apartheid victims appealed the decision of a lower court that had dismissed claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) made against various defendant corporations concerning alleged violations of international law, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the TVPA claims, but vacated portions of the lower court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ ATCA claims.
In a separate opinion, Judge Korman stated:
[T]he tenuous interest of the United States in the issues raised by these cases is also reflected in the fact that, under customary international law, we could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action against the primary tortfeasor – the officials of the Union of South Africa –or the foreign corporate defendants. This is so, because apartheid, however abhorrent it may have been, has not been regarded as an offense subject to the exercise of universal jurisdiction. This concept, as its name implies, “recognize[s] that international law permits any state to apply its laws to punish certain offenses although the state has no links of territory with the offense, or of nationality with the offender (or even the victim).” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law ß 404 cmt. a (1987); see also Matter of Extradition of Demjanjuk, 612 F. Supp. 544, 555–58 (N.D. Ohio 1985). Universal jurisdiction is dependent not only on “substantive agreement as to certain universally condemned behavior,” which transforms the behavior into a violation of customary international law, but also “procedural agreement that universal jurisdiction exists to prosecute a subset of that behavior.” Sosa, 542 U.S. at 762 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
There is no agreement with respect to the latter issue. Although the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law cites racial discrimination, “when practiced systematically as a matter of state policy, e.g., apartheid,” as a violation of customary international law, id. ß 702 cmt. i (emphasis deleted), it omits apartheid from the list of offenses subject to universal jurisdiction. Instead, the Restatement states that universal jurisdiction exists only for “certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks on or hijacking of aircraft, genocide, war crimes, and perhaps certain acts of terrorism.” Id. ß 404. Indeed, while the Reporters of the Restatement observed that the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted Nov. 30, 1973, 1015 U.N.T.S. 243 (the “Apartheid Convention”), provided for universal jurisdiction, they stated that it did so only “[a]mong [the] parties to the Convention.” Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law ß 702 reporters’ note 7. See also Antonio Cassese, Crimes Against Humanity, in 1 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary 353, 376 (Antonio Cassese et al., eds., 2002) (observing that the Rome Statute, enacted in 1998, is broader than customary international law and “expands general international law” insofar as it, inter alia, “broadens the classes of conduct amounting to crimes against humanity” to include “the crime of apartheid”). Likewise, the European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, has stated explicitly that, while “apartheid is widely condemned by states … at least at present, it does not give rise to universal jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the [Apartheid Convention] … has not been widely ratified.” Br. for the European Commission as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 159 L. Ed. 2d 718 (No. 03-339), 2004 WL 177036, at 16 n.35. Another reason is that jurisdiction is limited to certain universally condemned crimes which “by their nature occur either outside of a State or where there is no State capable of punishing, or competent to punish, the crime (as in a time of war).” United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 105 (2d Cir. 2003). 
United States, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Khulumani case, Separate Opinion of Judge Korman, 12 October 2007.
Bulgaria
In 1979, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Bulgaria stated that under international law, the practice of apartheid was a crime against humanity. 
Bulgaria, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/34/PV.55, 6 November 1979, § 85.
Kenya
In 1981, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Kenya recalled that the practice of apartheid was considered a crime against humanity by international law and the international community. 
Kenya, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/35/PV.108, 5 March 1981, § 101.
Lebanon
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Lebanon stated:
The construction of the wall and the resulting situation correspond to a number of the constituent acts of the crime of apartheid, as enumerated in Article 2 of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the General Assembly on 30 November 1973: that is to say, the denial of the liberty and dignity of a group, the deliberate imposition on a group of living conditions calculated to cause its physical destruction in whole or in part, measures calculated to deprive a group of the right to work, the right to education and the right to freedom of movement and residence, the creation of ghettos, the expropriation of property, etc. 
Lebanon, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, § 38.
Romania
In 1973, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on a draft convention on apartheid, Romania stated:
In light of the references to apartheid in the United Nations instruments and resolutions mentioned in the preamble to the draft Convention, it could be said that apartheid was already regarded in international law as constituting a crime against humanity. 
Romania, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.2004, 23 October 1973, § 7.
Syrian Arab Republic
The Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic asserts that the Syrian Arab Republic considers Article 85 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to be part of customary international law. 
Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, 1997, Chapter 5.6.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
In 1973, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on a draft convention on apartheid, the USSR stated that apartheid was recognized as a crime against humanity in international law and was thus binding on South Africa. 
USSR, Statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.2004, 23 October 1973, § 45.
United Arab Emirates
In 1980, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, the United Arab Emirates stated that apartheid was “a crime against the human conscience and a serious violation of the human principles and values on which civilization is based”. 
United Arab Emirates, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/35/PV.56, 11 November 1980, § 69.
Viet Nam
In 1981, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, Viet Nam declared that the practice of apartheid was considered a crime against humanity by international law. 
Viet Nam, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/35/PV.106, 4 March 1981, § 29.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1976, the UN Security Council reaffirmed that “the policy of apartheid is a crime against the conscience and dignity of mankind and seriously disturbs international peace and security”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 392, 19 June 1976, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1980, the UN Security Council:
Reaffirms that the policy of apartheid is a crime against the conscience and dignity of mankind and is incompatible with the rights and dignity of man, the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and seriously disturbs international peace and security. 
UN Security Council, Res. 473, 13 June 1980, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1966, the UN General Assembly declared that “the practice of apartheid, as also all forms of racial discrimination, constitutes a crime against humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2189 (XXI), 13 December 1966, § 6, voting record: 76-7-20-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1967, the UN General Assembly condemned “the policies of oppression, racial discrimination and segregation practised in Southern Rhodesia, which constitute a crime against humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2262 (XXII), 3 November 1967, § 2, voting record: 92-2-18-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1967, the UN General Assembly reiterated its declaration that “the practice of apartheid and all forms of racial discrimination constitute a crime against humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2326 (XXII), 16 December 1967, § 5, voting record: 86-6-17-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1979, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed that “apartheid is a crime against the conscience and dignity of mankind”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 33/183 B, 24 January 1979, preamble, voting record: 122-4-0-25.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1979, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed that “apartheid is a crime against humanity”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 34/93 A, 12 December 1979, preamble, voting record: 109-12-21-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the UN General Assembly acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/160, 22 December 2003, § 1, voting record: 174-2-2-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the UN General Assembly acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/177, 20 December 2004, § 1, voting record: 183-3-2-3.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the UN General Assembly acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/144, 16 December 2005, § 1, voting record: 172-3-4-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the UN General Assembly acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/149, 19 December 2006, § 1, voting record: 179-2-4-7.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the UN General Assembly acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/220, 22 December 2007, § 1, voting record: 105-46-6-35.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation of human rights in South Africa, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Reaffirms its support for the legitimate struggle of the South African people for the total eradication of apartheid through peaceful means and their right to establish a non-racial, democratic system which is consistent with the International Bill of Human Rights. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/19, 28 February 1992, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Second Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and launching of a third decade to combat racism and racial discrimination, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Declares that all forms of racism and racial discrimination, particularly in their institutionalized form, such as apartheid, or resulting from official doctrines of racial superiority or exclusivity, are among the most serious violations of human rights in the contemporary world and must be combated by all available means. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/11, 26 February 1993, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the UN Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/30, 23 April 2003, § 1, voting record: 38-1-13.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the UN Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/88, 22 April 2004, § 1, voting record: 38-1-14.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the UN Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that “no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery is permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/64, 20 April 2005, § 1, voting record: 38-1-14.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In 1974, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights established a Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery to review developments in various fields, including practices of apartheid. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery on its 26th Session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/30, 16 July 2001, § 1.
No data.
World Conference on Human Rights
In the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 expressed dismay and condemnation that “gross and systematic violations and situations that constitute serious obstacles to the full enjoyment of all human rights continue to occur in all parts of the world, [including] … apartheid”. 
World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14–25 June 1993, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23, 12 July 1993, § I(30).
No data.
ICRC
The ICRC’s commentary on Article 85 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I notes: “The practices concerned were already grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions, whatever their motive; this is simply a special mention of reprehensible conduct for which the motive is particularly shocking.” 
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 3515.
ICRC
In 1997, in a working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC proposed that the following war crime, when committed wilfully and in violation of international humanitarian law, be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court: “practices of apartheid, and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination”. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, § 1(c)(iii).
No data.