Practice Relating to Rule 91. Corporal Punishment

Geneva POW Convention
Article 46, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “All forms of corporal punishment … are prohibited.” 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 46, third para.
Geneva Convention III
Article 87, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides that corporal punishment is forbidden. 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 87, third para.
Geneva Convention IV
Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, corporal punishment is prohibited. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 32.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 100, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
The disciplinary regime in places of internment shall be consistent with humanitarian principles, and shall in no circumstances include regulations imposing on internees any physical exertion dangerous to their health or involving physical or moral victimization. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 100, first para.
The second paragraph provides that punishment drill is prohibited. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 100, second para.
Additional Protocol I
Under Article 75(2)(iii) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, corporal punishment is prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents. 
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(2)(iii). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.
Additional Protocol II
Under Article 4(2)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, any form of corporal punishment is prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever. 
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(2)(a). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
Article 3(1)(a) of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides that the Court is competent to prosecute violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, which include “any form of corporal punishment”. 
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 29, Article 3(1)(a).
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 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 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.
ICTR Statute
According to Article 4(a) of the 1994 ICTR Statute, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including “violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular … any form of corporal punishment”. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 4(a).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Article 20(f)(i) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind provides that “any form of corporal punishment” committed in violation of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict not of an international character is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(f)(i).
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 3(1) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides, inter alia, that corporal punishment shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to persons hors de combat. 
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 3(1).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
According to Section 7.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin, any form of corporal punishment, against persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations and persons placed hors de combat are prohibited at any time and in any place.  
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 7.2.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that corporal punishment of prisoners of war and civilians is prohibited, in both international and internal 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, §§ 3.25, 4.15 and 7.04.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states, with regard to inhabitants of occupied territory, that corporal punishment is prohibited. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1219.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
The following acts are prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
• Violence to the life, health or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
– corporal punishment;
• threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.46.
The manual also states with regard to the general treatment of protected persons in both their own territory and occupied territory that “imposition of corporal … punishment … [is] forbidden”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.58; see also §12.37.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “No one shall be subjected … to corporal punishment”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 5 and Fascicule III, p. 4.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) prohibits corporal punishment of POWs, civilians and protected persons in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-7, § 61, p. 11-4, § 33, p. 11-8, § 63-a(iii) and p. 17-3, § 21.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs): “Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishment, imprisonment in premises without daylight and any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1039.9.
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 1949 Geneva Convention IV] prohibits taking any measure, which will cause physical suffering to protected persons or will lead to their extermination. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation or medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other form of brutality, whether applied by civilians or by military personnel. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1121.2.
In the same chapter, in a section entitled “Additional Protocol I”, the manual states:
1. [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. It states in part:
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
a. violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(3) corporal punishment;
e. threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1135.1, 2.a.3 and e.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
Although [The 1977 Additional Protocol II]contains no provisions relating to enforcement or punishment of breaches, it does contain a statement of fundamental guarantees prohibiting at any time and anywhere:
a. violence to the life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;
g. threats to commit any of the foregoing. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1713.1.a and g.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) prohibits “corporal punishment”. 
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. 92.
Colombia
Colombia’s Circular on Fundamental Rules of IHL (1992) provides: “Nobody shall be subjected to corporal punishment.” 
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, § 5.
Croatia
According to Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993), detainees must be protected against all acts of violence, including corporal punishment. 
Croatia, Instructions “Basic Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1993, §§ 4–5.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “Corporal punishment is strictly prohibited.” 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 82(3).
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides that no one shall be subjected to corporal punishment. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 3.2.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) refers to Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and provides that corporal punishment is a war crime. 
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. 45.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) refers to the 1949 Geneva Convention III and provides that corporal punishment of prisoners of war is prohibited. 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 53.
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 … corporal punishment, torture and imprisonment under inhumane conditions are 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 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, in occupied territories, civilians shall not be subject to corporal punishment. 
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(e).
Madagascar
According to Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994), one of the seven fundamental rules of IHL is that nobody shall be subjected to corporal punishment. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 91, Rule 5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands restates the prohibition of corporal punishment contained in Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and Article 4 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. VIII-3 and XI-4.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
Fundamental guarantees
What is the right to protection of persons not deemed prisoners of war? Primarily, these are civilians who play a direct part in hostilities, but also to mercenaries … The use of violence against such persons is prohibited (… no corporal punishment, etc.). 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0708.
In its chapter on the protection of the civilian population, the manual refers to corporal punishment as an act that is “prohibited at all times”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0810.
(emphasis in original)
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
It is expressly prohibited to carry out the following acts against the civilian population or individual civilians, wounded, sick or prisoners:
- violence or assaults on the life, health or physical or mental wellbeing of persons, especially: killing/murder, cruel treatment, mutilation, torture or corporal punishments;
- threatening anyone with the above-mentioned acts or treatment. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1051.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Corporal punishments [of POWs] … are forbidden.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 931.2.
The manual restates Article 75(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, according to which “corporal punishment” is prohibited “at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1137.2.
Regarding civilians, the manual stipulates that the 1949 Geneva Convention IV prohibits the parties from “taking any measure of such character as to cause the physical suffering … of protected persons in their hands”, including corporal punishment. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1321.4.
In the case of non-international armed conflict, the manual prohibits at any time and anywhere “any form of corporal punishment”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1812.1.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996) states that the prohibition of corporal punishment is a fundamental guarantee. 
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, Article 14(31).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Corporal punishment ... [is] prohibited.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.i.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010), in a section on the “Civilian Population”, states: “Corporal punishment … [is] prohibited.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 31(i), p. 251.
Romania
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that captured combatants and civilians “shall not be subjected to … corporal punishments”. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 34, § 2.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states with regard to internal armed conflict: “The following acts against [all persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities] are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever: … any form of corporal punishment [and] threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.” 
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.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that corporal punishment of prisoners of war or persons protected by the 1949 Geneva Convention IV is prohibited at any time and in any place, whether carried out by military or by civilian agents. 
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, §§ 8.2.c and 8.7.b.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
[N]o person who is captured or detained in relation to an armed conflict remains unprotected under the law of armed conflict and is entitled, at all times, to minimum guarantees. [These include] … prohibition of the following acts at any time and in any place, whether committed by civilian or military agents:
4. corporal punishment. 
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, § 8.2.c; see also § 1.4.
The manual also states that prisoners of war must not be subjected to “corporal punishment”. 
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, § 8.7.b.
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 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 military manuals provide that enemy civilians shall not be subjected to corporal punishment. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre, Manuel 51.7/III dfi, Armée suisse, 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; Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 147.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides: “No one shall be subjected … to corporal punishment.” 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 5 and Fascicule III, p. 4.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “corporal punishment”, or threats of such action, against the following persons is prohibited in non-international armed conflicts:
- persons taking no active part in the hostilities;
- members of armed forces who have laid down their arms;
- those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.4.10.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) prohibits measures against protected persons which will cause physical suffering and states: “This prohibition applies … to corporal punishments.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 42.
The manual further states: “Corporal punishments … are forbidden.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 205.
The manual states that, in occupied territories, the prohibition of measures of such character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in the hands of the occupant “applies … to corporal punishment”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 549.
The manual recalls that “corporal punishment is excluded” with regard to the punishment of war criminals. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 638.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) forbids corporal punishment. 
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.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Corporal punishment and cruelty in any form are prohibited.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.48; see also §§ 9.4 (civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict) and 8.121 (prisoners of war).
With regard to internal armed conflicts in which the 1977 Additional Protocol II is applicable, the manual provides:
The following acts against protected persons “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”. These are:
a. … any form of corporal punishment. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.38.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) forbids corporal punishment of prisoners of war and civilians. 
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, §§ 163 and 271.
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states that “imposition of physical punishment is inconsistent with the humane treatment obligation”. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-10.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan’s Law on Juvenile Rehabilitation and Training Centres (2009) states regarding the detention of juveniles: “[P]unishments , humiliation and all activities which disturb [the] physical [or psychological] health of [the] child, [whether] suspected, accused [or] convicted to imprisonment, … are prohibited.” 
Afghanistan, Law on Juvenile Rehabilitation and Training Centres, 2009, Article 31(2).
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, it is prohibited to carry out corporal punishment against civilian persons and prisoners of war. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Articles 17(1) and 21(1).
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).
China
China’s Prison Law (1994) states:
The people’s police of a prison shall not commit any of the following acts:
(3) to use torture to coerce a confession, or to use corporal punishment, or to maltreat a prisoner;
If the people’s police of a prison commit any act specified in the preceding paragraph and the case constitutes a crime, the offenders shall be investigated for criminal responsibility; if the case does not constitute a crime, the offenders shall be given administrative sanctions. 
China, Prison Law, 1994, Article 14.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 87 of the Geneva Convention III and Articles 32 and 100 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 75(2)(iii), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 4(2)(a), 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 Islamic Penal Code (1982) states:
Children committing an offence enjoy exemption from legal liability. … When, in case of grave offences, corporal chastisement is considered necessary for the correction of the child committing the offence, the chastisement shall be inflicted in a way that it may not incur the liability of Diyat [monetary compensation under Sharia law]. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Penal Code, 1982, Section 26.
Mozambique
Mozambique’s Military Criminal Law (1987) provides that carrying out corporal punishments is a criminal offence. 
Mozambique, Military Criminal Law, 1987, Article 85(a).
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.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (2002) states:
Sec. 4. Definitions.– As used in this Rule,
(q) Corporal punishment is any kind of physical punishment inflicted on the body as distinguished from pecuniary punishment or fine.
Sec. 30. Guiding Principles in Judging the Juvenile.– Subject to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special laws, the judgment against a juvenile in conflict with the law shall be guided by the following principles:
3. No corporal punishment shall be imposed. 
Philippines, Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, 2002, Sections 4(q) and 30.3.
Poland
Poland’s Constitution (1997) states: “The application of corporal punishment shall be prohibited.” 
Poland, Constitution, 1997, Article 40.
Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of any person who, in violation of international law, subjects to corporal punishment persons hors de combat, protected persons and persons enjoying international protection. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 124.
United States of America
The US Military Commissions Act (2006), passed by Congress following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, amends Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
“SUBCHAPTER V—SENTENCES
§ 949s. Cruel or unusual punishments prohibited
“Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a military commission under this chapter or inflicted under this chapter upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited under this chapter. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, p. 120 Stat. 2617, § 949s.
United States of America
The US Military Commissions Act (2009) amends Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:
§ 949s. Cruel or unusual punishments prohibited
“Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a military commission under this chapter or inflicted under this chapter upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited under this chapter. 
United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 949s.
Viet Nam
Viet Nam’s Criminal Procedure Code (2003) states: “All forms of coercion and corporal punishment are strictly forbidden.” 
Viet Nam, Criminal Procedure Code, 2003, § 6.
Canada
In its judgment in the Smith case in 1987, the Canada’s Supreme Court stated:
The criterion which must be applied in order to determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual within the meaning of s. 12 of the Charter is, to use the words of Laskin C.J. in Miller and Cockriell, supra, at p. 688, “whether the punishment prescribed is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”. In other words, though the state may impose punishment, the effect of that punishment must not be grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate. 
Canada, Supreme Court, Smith case, Judgment, 25 June 1987, § 54.
The Court further stated:
[S]ome punishments or treatments will always be grossly disproportionate and will always outrage our standards of decency: for example, the infliction of corporal punishment, such as the lash, irrespective of the number of lashes imposed. 
Canada, Supreme Court, Smith case, Judgment, 25 June 1987, § 57.
Canada
In the Suresh case before the Supreme Court of Canada in 2002, the appellant challenged an order for his deportation, inter alia, on the grounds that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms precludes deportation to a country where a refugee faces torture. In its judgment, the Supreme Court held:
When Canada adopted the Charter in 1982, it affirmed the opposition of the Canadian people to government-sanctioned torture by proscribing cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in s. 12. A punishment is cruel and unusual if it “is so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”: see R. v. Smith, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045, at pp. 1072–73, per Lamer J. (as he then was). It must be so inherently repugnant that it could never be an appropriate punishment, however egregious the offence. Torture falls into this category. The prospect of torture induces fear and its consequences may be devastating, irreversible, indeed, fatal. Torture may be meted out indiscriminately or arbitrarily for no particular offence. Torture has as its end the denial of a person’s humanity; this end is outside the legitimate domain of a criminal justice system … Torture is an instrument of terror and not of justice. As Lamer J. stated in Smith, supra, at pp. 1073–74, “some punishments or treatments will always be grossly disproportionate and will always outrage our standards of decency: for example, the infliction of corporal punishment”. As such, torture is seen in Canada as fundamentally unjust. 
Canada, Supreme Court, Suresh case, Judgment, 11 January 2002, § 51.
Colombia
In 1995, Colombia’s Constitutional Court held that prohibitions contained in Article 4(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II were consistent with the Constitution, since they were not only in harmony with the principles and values of the Constitution, but also practically reproduced specific constitutional provisions. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-225/95, Judgment, 18 May 1995.
Netherlands
In its judgment in the Notomi Sueo case in 1947, the Temporary Court-Martial at Makassar sentenced four of the accused to death and two others to imprisonment. The accused were in charge of a prisoner of war camp. They were responsible for corporal and disciplinary punishments of prisoners of war, which went far beyond legitimate disciplinary measures. The Court thus considered that Article 46 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention, which was considered to reflect customary international humanitarian law, had been violated. 
Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial at Makassar, Notomi Sueo case, Judgment, 4 January 1947.
Denmark
In 2006, in a report on the detention and transfer of persons in Afghanistan in 2002, the Danish Ministry of Defence stated:
International humanitarian law contains in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions a series of basic fundamental guarantees which apply to any person in a conflicting party’s custody. The persons to whom it applies, for example people who do not have the status of prisoners of war, must always be treated humanly and guaranteed right to personal integrity, honour, belief and religion. The following acts, which involve violence against persons’ life, health or physical or mental well being, are without exception prohibited, this is regardless of whether they relate to civilian or military officials:
- Corporal punishment. 
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.
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.
Poland
In 2004, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Poland stated: “The application of corporal punishment shall be prohibited.” 
Poland, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/POL/2004/5, 26 January 2004, § 115.
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 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 [the 1977] Additional Protocol I as well as that of art. 3 common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, section 3.4, p. 15.
[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:
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:
12.10. … Corporal punishment is prohibited.
12.11. Accordingly, even had the imposition of the stress positions to which the detainees were subjected been legal (which it was not) then punishing them with violence for failing to maintain them was contrary to IHL. 
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, §§ 12, 12.10 and 12.11, pp. 28 and 30–31.
[emphasis in original]
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 notes: “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 General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon all States “to take appropriate steps to ensure that no child in detention is sentenced to forced labour or corporal punishment”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/157, 22 December 2003, § 41(c), voting record: 179-1-0-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon all States “to ensure that no child in detention is sentenced to forced labour or corporal punishment”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/261, 23 December 2004, § 38(b), voting record: 166-2-1-22.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon all States “to ensure that no child in detention is sentenced to forced labour or corporal punishment”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/231, 23 December 2005, § 28, voting record: 130-1-0-60.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon all States “to ensure that no child in detention is sentenced to forced labour or any form of cruel or degrading punishment”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/146, 19 December 2006, § 32, voting record: 185-1-0-6.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly called upon all States “to ensure that no child in detention is sentenced to forced labour or any form of cruel or degrading punishment”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/141, 18 December 2007, § 37, voting record: 183-1-0-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the UN Commission on Human Rights reminded governments that “corporal punishment, including of children, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or even to torture”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/32, 23 April 2003, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the UN Commission on Human Rights reminded governments that “corporal punishment, including of children, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or even to torture”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/41, 19 April 2004, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the UN Commission on Human Rights reminded governments that “corporal punishment, including of children, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or even to torture”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/39, 19 April 2005, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all States to ensure “that no child in detention is sentenced to … corporal punishment”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/44, 19 April 2005, § 27(d), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1997, in a report on torture, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights took the view that:
Corporal punishment [a variety of methods of punishment, including flagellation, stoning, amputation of ears, fingers, toes or limbs, and branding or tattooing] is inconsistent with the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment enshrined, inter alia, in the [1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Torture, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/7, 10 January 1997, §§ 5–6.
No data.
No data.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
In the Semanza case before the ICTR in 1999, the accused, Laurent Semanza, who was a member of the Central Committee of the Mouvement républicain national pour le développement et la démocratie (MRND) was charged with committing various crimes against Tutsi civilians in the Bicumbi and Gikoro communes, Rwanda, during the period 1 April and 31 July 1994. These crimes included violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being – including corporal punishment – as a serious violation of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, punishable under Article 4(a) of the 1994 ICTR Statute. 
ICTR, Semanza case, Third Amended Indictment, 12 October 1999, § 3.19, Count 7.
In its judgment in 2003, The Trial Chamber found the accused not guilty of crimes related to serious violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, but guilty of complicity to commit genocide, as well as various crimes against humanity – including rape, torture, murder and extermination. He was sentenced to a total of 24 years and 6 months of imprisonment. 
ICTR, Semanza case, Judgment, 15 May 2003, §§ 553 and 590.
In its judgment in 2005, the Appeals Chamber found that, in respect of the war crimes charges involving violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being, the Trial Chamber had misapplied the law on cumulative convictions. It reversed the acquittals and entered convictions for serious violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II in respect of Count 7 (for ordering murder and aiding and abetting murder) and in respect of Count 13 (for instigating rape and torture, for murder and for committing torture and intentional murder). The Appeals Chamber also found that the Trial Chamber had erred in its finding that the accused did not have the necessary authority to render him liable for ordering the attacks that had resulted in charges of genocide and extermination in respect of the massacre at Musha Church. It therefore entered a conviction for ordering genocide and for ordering extermination in relation to that massacre. 
ICTR, Semanza case, Judgment on Appeal, 20 May 2005, § 364 and IV. Disposition.
The accused’s sentence was subsequently increased to 34 years and 6 months of imprisonment (which incorporated a six-month reduction in sentence ordered by the Trial Chamber for violations of the accused’s fundamental pre-trial rights). 
ICTR, Semanza case, Judgment on Appeal, 20 May 2005, IV. Disposition.
Human Rights Committee
In its General Comment on Article 7 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992, the Human Rights Committee stated that the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment “must extend to corporal punishment, including excessive chastisement ordered as punishment for a crime or as an educative or disciplinary measure”. 
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20 (Article 7 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 10 April 1992, § 5.
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Sri Lanka in 2003, the Human Rights Committee stated:
While noting that corporal punishment has not been imposed as a sanction by the courts for about 20 years, the Committee expresses concern that it is still statutorily permitted, and that it is still used as a prison disciplinary punishment … (art. 7 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
The State party is urged to abolish all forms of corporal punishment as a matter of law and effectively to enforce these measures in prisons. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of Sri Lanka, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/LKA, 1 December 2003, § 11.
[emphasis in original]
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Yemen in 2005, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee reiterates its deep concern that corporal punishments such as flogging, and in a few cases even amputation of limbs, are still prescribed by law and practised in the State party, in violation of article 7 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] [no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment].
The State party should immediately put an end to such practices and modify its legislation accordingly, in order to ensure its full compatibility with the Covenant. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Yemen, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/84/YEM, 9 August 2005, § 16.
[emphasis in original]
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Sudan in 2007, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee notes with concern the scale of values applied to punishment in the State party’s legislation. It considers that corporal punishment including flogging and amputation is inhuman and degrading … (arts. 2, 7, 10 and 14 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
The State party should abolish all forms of punishment that are in breach of articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the third periodic report of the Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, 29 August 2007, § 10.
Human Rights Committee
In Pryce v. Jamaica in 2004, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee notes that the author has made specific and detailed allegations concerning his punishment. The State party has not responded to these allegations. The Committee notes that the author was sentenced to 6 strokes of the tamarind switch and recalls its jurisprudence, that, irrespective of the nature of the crime that is to be punished, however brutal it may be, corporal punishment constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to article 7 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. The Committee finds that the imposition of a sentence of whipping with the tamarind switch on the author constituted a violation of the author’s rights under article 7, as did the manner in which the sentence was executed. 
Human Rights Committee, Pryce v. Jamaica, Views, 13 May 2004. § 6.2.
European Court of Human Rights
In its judgment in the Tyrer case in 1978 dealing with judicial corporal punishment, the European Court of Human Rights held that in that context, the offender was placed in a position where his dignity and physical integrity were compromised and that “the judicial corporal punishment inflicted on Mr. Tyrer amounted to degrading punishment within the meaning of Article 3 [of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights]”. 
European Court of Human Rights, Tyrer case, Judgment, 25 April 1978, § 2 (decision).
European Court of Human Rights
In its judgment in the A. v. UK case in 1998, the European Court of Human Rights considered the corporal punishment carried out by a stepfather (and not by a public official) and held that it could amount to inhumane treatment. The European Court of Human Rights stated:
Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 [of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights]. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim … The Court considers that treatment of this kind reaches the level of severity prohibited by Article 3. 
European Court of Human Rights, A. v. UK, Judgment, 23 September 1998, §§ 20–21.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Corporal punishment is prohibited.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 193.
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 corporal punishment, as a serious violation of international humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts, be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, § 3(i).
Amnesty International
In 1985, Amnesty International reported that the People’s Assembly of the People’s Republic of Mozambique reintroduced corporal punishment for a number of offences, including for persons found to be members of the Resistência Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO). 
Amnesty International, Reports of the use of torture in the People’s Republic of Mozambique, AI Index: AFR 41/102/85, April 1985, pp. 6–8.