Practice Related to Rule 95. Forced Labour

Note: For practice concerning compensation for forced labour, see Rule 150.
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 6 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the military operations.
Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.
Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks.
When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.
The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 6.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 6 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude, officers excepted. The tasks shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with the operations of the war.
Prisoners may be authorized to work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own account.
Work done for the State is paid for at the rates in force for work of a similar kind done by soldiers of the national army, or, if there are none in force, at a rate according to the work executed.
When the work is for other branches of the public service or for private persons the conditions are settled in agreement with the military authorities.
The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them on their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 6.
Geneva POW Convention
Article 29 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “No prisoner of war may be employed on work for which he is physically unsuited.” 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 29.
Geneva POW Convention
Article 30 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides:
The duration of the daily work of prisoners of war, including the time of the journey to and from work, shall not be excessive and shall in no case exceed that permitted for civil workers of the locality employed on the same work. Each prisoner shall be allowed a rest of twenty-four consecutive hours each week, preferably on Sunday. 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 30.
Geneva POW Convention
Article 31, first paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides:
Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection with the operations of the war. In particular, it is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units. 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 31, first para.
Geneva POW Convention
Article 32 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides:
It is forbidden to employ prisoners of war on unhealthy or dangerous work. Conditions of work shall not be rendered more arduous by disciplinary measures. 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 32.
Forced Labour Convention
Article 1 of the 1930 Forced Labour Convention provides: “Each Member of the International Labour Organisation which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress the use of forced or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period.” Article 2 adds: “The term ‘forced or compulsory labour’ shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” 
Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, ILO Convention No. 29, adopted by the ILO General Conference, Geneva, 28 June 1930, Articles 1 and 2.
IMT Charter (Nuremberg)
Article 6 of the 1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg) provides that “deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, concluded by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto, annexed to the London Agreement, London, 8 August 1945, Article 6.
Geneva Convention III
Articles 49–68 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III regulate the labour of prisoners of war. 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Articles 49–68.
Geneva Convention III
Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III lays down the categories of work that prisoners of war may be compelled to do. 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 50.
Geneva Convention III
Article 52 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides that prisoners of war shall not be compelled to carry out unhealthy, dangerous or humiliating work. 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 52.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 40, first and second paragraphs, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
Protected persons may be compelled to work only to the same extent as nationals of the Party to the conflict in whose territory they are.
If protected persons are of enemy nationality, they may only be compelled to do work which is normally necessary to ensure the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transport and health of human beings and which is not directly related to the conduct of military operations. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 40, first and second paras.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 51, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to work unless they are over eighteen years of age, and then only on work which is necessary either for the needs of the army of occupation, or for the public utility services, or for the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied country. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 51, second para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 95, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:
The Detaining Power shall not employ internees as workers, unless they so desire. Employment which, if undertaken under compulsion by a protected person not in internment, would involve a breach of Articles 40 or 51 of the present Convention, and employment on work which is of a degrading or humiliating character are in any case prohibited.  
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 95, first para.
European Convention on Human Rights
Article 4(2) of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights provides: “No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.” 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950, as amended by Protocol No. 11, Strasbourg, 11 May 1994, Article 4(2).
Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour
Article 1 of the 1957 Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour provides:
Each Member of the [International Labour Organization] which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour:
(a) As a means of political coercion or education or as a punishment for holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system;
(b) As a method of mobilising and using labour for purposes of economic development;
(c) As a means of labour discipline;
(d) As a punishment for having participated in strikes;
(e) As a means of racial, social, national or religious discrimination. 
Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour, ILO Convention No. 105, adopted by the ILO General Conference, Geneva, 25 June 1957, Article 1.
Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour
Article 2 of the 1957 Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour states: “Each Member … undertakes to take effective measures to secure the immediate and complete abolition of forced or compulsory labour as specified in article 1 of this Convention.” 
Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour, ILO Convention No. 105, adopted by the ILO General Conference, Geneva, 25 June 1957, Article 2.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 8(3)(a) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: “No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.” 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, Article 8(3)(a).
Additional Protocol II
Article 5(1)(e) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides that persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict, whether they are interned or detained, “shall, if made to work, have the benefit of working conditions and safeguards similar to those enjoyed by the local civilian population”. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 5(1)(e). Article 5 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 92.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Article 5 of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights states: “All forms of exploitation and degradation of man, … shall be prohibited.” 
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the Eighteenth Ordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Nairobi, 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev.5, Article 5.
Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour
Article 1 of the 1999 Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour provides that States “shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency”. Article 3 provides that the term “the worst forms of child labour” comprises:
(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;
(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. 
Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, ILO Convention No. 182, adopted by the ILO General Conference, Geneva, 17 June 1999, Articles 1 and 3.
Kampala Convention
Article 9(1) of the 2009 Kampala Convention states:
State Parties shall protect the rights of internally displaced persons regardless of the cause of displacement by refraining from, and preventing, the following acts, amongst others:
d. … forced labour. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 9(1)(d).
Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including forced labour of civilians in connection with the military operations of the enemy and the employment of prisoners of war on unauthorized works. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.
Allied Control Council Law No. 10
Article II(1) of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10 provides that “deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Allied Control Council Law No. 10: Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, enacted by the Allied Control Council of Germany, composed of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Berlin, 20 December 1945, Article II(1).
Nuremberg Principles
Principle VI of the 1950 Nuremberg Principles adopted by the International Law Commission provides that “deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, adopted by the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/1316, New York, 5 June–29 July 1950, Principle VI.
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
Article 11(a) of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam provides: “Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to Allah the Almighty.” 
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, adopted at the 19th Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Res. 49/19-P, Cairo, 5 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 19 September 1990 from the permanent representative of Egypt to the UN addressed to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/421-S/21797, 20 September 1990, Article 11(a).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Article 21 of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind includes “establishing or maintaining over persons a status of slavery, servitude or forced labour” as systematic or massive violations of human rights. 
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 21.
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 2(8) of Part III of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that the Agreement seeks to protect and promote the right not to perform forced or compulsory labour.  
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 III, Article 2(8).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
12.21 Duties of officials. The occupying power may not alter the status of officials, nor apply any sanctions or take measures of coercion or discrimination against them if they decide to abstain on grounds of conscience from fulfilling their functions. A belligerent cannot compel officials to take part in military operations against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the armed conflict.
Compulsory labour
12.40 The occupying power may only compel persons over the age of 18 to work, and then only on the needs of the army of occupation, the public utility services, or for the feeding, clothing, sheltering, transportation or health of the population of the occupied territory. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 12.21 and 12.40.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states:
The Occupying Power may not compel … the inhabitants to work unless it is necessary:
a) for the needs of the army of occupation;
b) for the public utility services;
c) for the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied territory.
Persons below the age of eighteen may not be forced to work. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 107.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 33: Treatment of prisoners of war
In the camps especially fitted out to that effect, the prisoners must work in conformity with the international conventions. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 33.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001), 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 the section entitled “Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict”, states:
Protected persons may be compelled to work only to the extent, under the same working conditions, and with the same benefits, as the nationals of the belligerent. Protected persons of enemy nationality may be compelled to do only the kind of work which is normally necessary to ensure the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transport and health of the population. They must not be required to do work directly related to the conduct of military operations. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1124.2.
In its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers, the manual states:
The occupying power may only compel persons over the age of eighteen to work, and only on work for the needs of the army of occupation, the public utility services, or for the feeding, clothing, sheltering, transportation or health of the population of the occupied territory. The population cannot be compelled to participate in any work, which would involve participation in military operations. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1225.
Canada
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states: “Prisoners of War (PW) will be required to carry out work, whilst taking account of their rank, sex, age and physical aptitude”. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 3G01.
Annex G to the manual provides guidance for the employment of prisoners of war. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 3G01.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “civilians may not be used to promote military operations (to build fortifications or anti-tank trenches, to transport shells or munitions, etc.) or for any kind of work that might endanger their lives”. 
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. 87.
The manual further states that “prisoners may not be subjected to … dangerous work”. 
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. 37.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
III. Prisoners of war
III.4. Evacuation
The main objective of evacuation is to allow prisoners of war to escape from the immediate danger in the battle zone. They must therefore be sent as far as possible towards the rear and in the meantime must not be exposed unnecessarily to danger. They must not be forced to engage in activities of a military nature, for example to open a passage through a minefield. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 43 and 46.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides that “offences against civilian inhabitants of the occupied territory, including … forced labour” are representative war crimes. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.5(2).
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009) states: “War crimes include … deportation of the civilian population of an occupied territory to be employed in forced labour”. 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands restates the rules on labour carried out by prisoners of war as found in Articles 49–52, 54, 60 and 64 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. VI-9/VII-10 and VIII-5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
It is expressly prohibited to carry out the following acts against the civilian population or individual civilians, wounded, sick or prisoners:
- slavery, slave trading or dangerous or degrading forced labour;
- threatening anyone with the above-mentioned acts or treatment. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1051.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states:
Section 2 - Applicability of human rights
1211. Human rights should be respected … However, “in time of war or in case of any other general state of emergency which threatens the existence of the country,” certain human rights may be curtailed as long as the situation strictly necessitates such measures. But the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery and forced labour, and the legal principle “no punishment without prior legal provision” cannot be waived. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1211.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992), in its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, provides that if detainees are made to work “they must enjoy the benefit of working conditions and safeguards similar to those enjoyed by the local population”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1814.2.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War gives a list of examples of war crimes, inter alia, “compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited work” and “using and, in particular, deporting civilians for forced labour”. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6(11) and (13).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
The occupying power may only compel the inhabitants of the occupied territory to do work which is necessary for:
(1) the needs of the army of occupation;
(2) public utility services;
(3) the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied territory.
Inhabitants of the occupied territory under eighteen years of age may not be compelled to work.
The inhabitants of the occupied territory may not be compelled to undertake any work which would involve them in the obligation of taking part in military operations. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 62.a.
The manual also states:
The occupying power may only requisition the following items:
(1) services of medical personnel.
Such items may only be requisitioned to the extent that they are required by the army and administrative personnel and when the needs of the civilian population are covered. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 64.a.(1).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
The occupying power may only compel the inhabitants of the occupied territory to do work which is necessary for:
(1) the needs of the army of occupation;
(2) public utility services;
(3) the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transportation or health of the population of the occupied territory.
Inhabitants of the occupied territory under eighteen years of age may not be compelled to work.
The inhabitants of the occupied territory may not be compelled to undertake any work which would involve them in the obligation to take part in military operations. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 63(a), p. 266.
The manual also states:
The occupying power may only requisition the following items:
(1) services of medical personnel.
Such items may only be requisitioned to the extent that they are required by the army and administrative personnel and when the needs of the civilian population are covered. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 65(a), p. 267.
In a section on prisoners of war, the manual states: “The labour of prisoners of war may be utilized according to their physical aptitude in terms of their age, sex or military grade”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 47, p. 258.
The manual also states that “international law prohibits employing prisoners of war for this work [i.e. the removal of landmines or similar objects], which is considered dangerous, unless the prisoners of war volunteer.” 
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. 414.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The prohibited methods of warfare include … forcing persons protected by international humanitarian law to take part in combat operations.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 7.
With regard to prisoners of war, the Regulations states: “Rank-and-file prisoners of war who are physically fit can be used to do work of non-military character.” 
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, § 53.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides in its discussion on prisoners of war:
Don’t allow them to do work which is injurious to health, humiliating, hazardous or has military character or purpose. For example don’t allow them to carry an ammunition box (unless they volunteer). 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 43.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that the “compelling of civilians to perform prohibited labour” 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, § 39(i).
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) provides that “[c]ompelling civilians to perform prohibited labour” is a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, §§ 61(i) and 57.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
The occupying power can compel adults to carry out work that is necessary to:
- meet the needs of the army of occupation;
- ensure public utility services;
- provide the population with food, shelter, clothing, transport and health care.
Working conditions should be, in principle, those established in the legislation in force in the occupied territory. So far as possible, people compelled to work should remain in their usual places of employment.
They may not be compelled to undertake any work which would involve them in military operations. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(3); see also § 5.6.a.(3).
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that, in non-international armed conflicts, in situations where the liberty of persons has been restricted, “in case [such persons] … are compelled to work, they shall be accorded labour conditions and protection equally with the local civilian population”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.4.13.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides that “compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited work” and “using and, in particular, deporting civilians for forced labour” are examples of punishable violations of the laws of war or war crimes. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(k) and (m).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Neither prisoners of war nor the inhabitants of occupied territory may be employed on work of a military nature.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.15.1; see also § 16.24 (enforcement of the law of armed conflict).
In its chapter on prisoners of war, the manual states:
Officers may not be compelled to work, but if they ask for it should be given suitable work. Non-commissioned officers can be required to do only supervisory work but may be given other suitable tasks if they so request. Other ranks can be compelled to work if they are fit, having regard to their age, health, sex and physical aptitude. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.83.
The manual specifies: “Prisoners of war who work must be paid a fair working rate of pay by the detaining authorities direct.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 8.77.
In its chapter on the protection of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict, the manual states:
Protected persons may be compelled to work only to the same extent as nationals of the host state. If they are of enemy nationality, they may only be made to do work which is normally necessary to ensure the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transport and health of the population. They may not be required to do work directly related to the conduct of military operations. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.4.
In its discussion on the internment of civilians, the manual states:
9.77. Detaining powers are forbidden to employ internees as workers unless the internees so desire. Any work which, if undertaken under compulsion by a protected person not in internment, would be contrary to the terms of the [1949 Geneva Convention IV], or which is degrading or humiliating, is forbidden. States may, however, employ, even compulsorily, interned doctors, dentists and other medical personnel in their professional capacity on behalf of their fellow internees, as well as other internees for administrative, maintenance and domestic tasks within the camp, and also on air raid protection work, provided that their health permits.
9.79. The detaining power is responsible for working conditions, medical attention, payment of wages and for ensuring compensation for occupational accidents and diseases. The standards are to be in accordance with national law and practice and should in no case be inferior to those applying to work of the same nature in the same district.
9.80. Wages are to be determined on an equitable basis by special agreements between internees, the detaining power and, where appropriate, private employers. Those engaged in medical or other internment camp work are to be paid fair wages. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 9.77–9.80.
With regard to internal armed conflicts in which the 1977 Additional Protocol II is applicable, the manual provides:
Internees or detainees continue to benefit from the basic fundamental guarantees outlined in paragraphs 15.37 and 15.38 and, if wounded and sick, in paragraph 15.43. However, in addition and again as a minimum, they are entitled:
d. if made to work, to have the benefit of working conditions and safeguards similar to those enjoyed by the local civilian population. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.40.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) states that compelling prisoners of war and civilians to perform prohibited labour is a war crime. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 504(k) and (m).
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) restates Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and provides that “wilfully compelling civilians or PWs [prisoners of war] to perform prohibited labour” is an act involving individual criminal responsibility. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 14-6(b) and 15-3(c)(9).
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states:
In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: … compelling prisoners of war to perform prohibited labor such as removing mines or digging defensive positions [and] compelling civilians to perform prohibited labor such as carrying mortars. 
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 13.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides that it is prohibited to subject prisoners of war to “unhealthy, dangerous, or otherwise prohibited labour”. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1–10, October 1989), § 6.2.5.(1).
The manual adds that imposing “forced labor” on civilian inhabitants of occupied territory is a war crime. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1–10, October 1989), § 6.2.5.(2).
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states that examples of war crimes that could be considered as grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions include:
1. Offenses against prisoners of war, including … unhealthy, dangerous, or otherwise prohibited labor …
2. Offenses against civilian inhabitants of occupied territory, including … forced labor. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 6.2.6(1)–(2).
Albania
Albania’s Military Penal Code (1995) provides that sentencing a person to slave labour is a war crime. 
Albania, Military Penal Code, 1995, Articles 73–75.
Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) provides that “forced labour of civilians in connection with the military operations of the enemy” is a war crime. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 3.
Australia
Under Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945), as amended in 2001, the deportation of a person to, or the internment of a person in, a death camp or a slave labour camp is a serious war crime. 
Australia, War Crimes Act as amended, 1945, Section 6.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that in international and non-international armed conflicts, forcing persons under 18 years to work is prohibited. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 17(8).
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “making [protected persons] carry out forced labour” is a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 115.2.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that “deportation to slave labour … of civilian population in the territory of Bangladesh” constitutes a war crime. It adds 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)(d) and (e).
Belarus
Under Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999), the deportation of the civilian population to forced labour is a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 135(2).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998) provides that compelling civilians to carry out forced labour is a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(1).
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 433(1).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states the following with respect to war crimes against civilians:
(1) Whoever in violation of rules of international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or perpetrates any of the following acts:
e) … forcible service in the … intelligence service or administration;
f) Forced labour …
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(e) and (f).
The Criminal Code also states:
Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law, buys, sells, hands over to another person or mediates in the purchase, sale or handing over a child or a juvenile for the purpose of … exploitation by labour …
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than five years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 185(2).
The Criminal Code, as amended in 2004, further states:
Whoever, by means of use of force or threat of use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability, or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, recruits, transports, transfers, harbours or receipts a person, for the purpose of … forced labour or services …
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, as amended in 2004, Article 186(1).
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “forcing prisoners of war to engage in work not allowed by the International Conventions” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(30).
Côte d’Ivoire
Under Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 1995, organizing, ordering or carrying out, in time of war or occupation, detention of the civilian population in forced labour camps constitutes a “crime against the civilian population”. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1995, Article 138(3).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides that subjecting the civilian population to forced labour is a war crime. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(1).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by whoever “forces [people] to serve in … the information services or administration of a hostile power [or] subjects them to forced labor”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Article 158(1).
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended in 1978, provides that compelling civilians to carry out forced labour is an offence. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice as amended, 1972, Article 526.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 192
In time of war or exceptional circumstances, compulsory work of civilians or deportation, for whatever reason, of a detained or interned individual, without a regular sentence in accordance with the laws and customs of war having been definitively pronounced, shall be punished with fifteen to twenty years of penal servitude.
If these acts were accompanied by ill-treatment, torture or followed by another breach, the perpetrator shall be punished by death. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 192.
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).
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) provides that “systematic deportation, transfer or detention in concentration or forced labour camps” is a war crime against the civilian population. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 282(c).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Articles 49–68 of the Geneva Convention III and Articles 40, 51 and 95 of the Geneva Convention IV, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 5(1)(e), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Israel
Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (1950) includes deportation to forced labour of the civilian population of or in occupied territories in its definition of war crimes. 
Israel, Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950, Section 1(b), this section also includes enslavement as a crime against humanity.
Italy
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) provides for the punishment of any member of the military who compels prisoners of war to carry out labour which is directly linked to military operations or which is especially prohibited by law or international conventions. 
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Articles 182 and 212(2).
Latvia
Latvia’s Criminal Code (1998) provides that assignment to forced labour of prisoners of war and civilians in the occupied territories is a war crime. 
Latvia, Criminal Code, 1998, Section 74.
Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the unlawful internment of civilians in labour camps is an offence. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 336.
Luxembourg
Under Luxembourg’s Law on the Repression of War Crimes (1947), any constraint to work and provide services destined for war purposes outside or in the territory of Luxembourg constitutes a war crime. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Repression of War Crimes, 1947, Article 2(1).
Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “forced labour of civilians in connection with the military operations of the enemy” and “the employment of prisoners of war on unauthorized works” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes the compelling of prisoners of war to carry out work related to the war effort. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 55(2).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Norway
Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states in a section related to “war crimes against persons”: “In the case of an international armed conflict, any person is also liable to punishment who … compels a national of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against his own country.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103(b) bis.
Peru
Peru’s Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) states:
Internally displaced persons who return to their places of habitual residence or who have resettled in another part of the country have a right to:
k) Be protected against forced labour. 
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 6(k).
Paraguay
Paraguay’s Penal Code (1997) provides that during war, armed conflict or military occupation, it is a war crime to subject the civilian population, the wounded and sick, and prisoners of war to forced labour. 
Paraguay, Penal Code, 1997, Article 320(4).
Philippines
The Philippines’ Republic Act No. 9208 (2003) on trafficking in persons states:
3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
(d) Forced Labor and Slavery – refer to the extraction of work or services from any person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion, including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.
4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. – It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial, to commit any of the following acts.
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage. 
Philippines, Republic Act No. 9208, 2003, Sections 3a, 3d and 4a.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Republic Act No. 9231 (2003), the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, states:
Sec. 12-D. Prohibition Against Worst Forms of Child Labor. – No child shall be engaged in the worst forms of child labor. The phrase “worst forms of child labor” shall refer to any of the following:
(1) All forms of slavery, as defined under the “Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”, or practices similar to slavery such as sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed conflict. 
Philippines, Republic Act No. 9231, 2003, preamble and Section 1.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 10
“War crime” shall also mean any of the following acts committed in armed conflicts:
5° enslavement and slave trade, slavery-related practices and forced labour in all its forms;
7° forced displacement, transfer or deportation of the civilian population, or its systematic sending to and detention in concentration camps or forced labour camps;
Article: 11
Anyone who commits one of the war crimes provided for in Article 10 of this law shall be punished by the following penalties:
1° the death penalty or life imprisonment where he has committed a crime provided for in point 1°, 4°, 5°, 6°, 9° or 10° of Article 10 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 10–11.
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or compelling members of the civilian population “into the service of a hostile power or its intelligence or administration services … [or into] forced labour”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(1).
The Criminal Code also states: “Whoever … hides or holds another person with intent to exploit such person … [through] forced labour … shall be punished by imprisonment of [from] two to twelve years.” 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 388.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Constitution (1991) states:
19. Protection from slavery and forced labour.
(1) No person shall be held in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced labour or traffic or deal in human beings.
(2) For the purposes of this section the expression “forced labour” does not include –
a. any labour required in consequence of a sentence or order of a court; or
b. labour required of any person while he is lawfully detained, which though not required in consequence of the sentence or order of a court, is reasonably necessary in the interest of hygiene or for the maintenance of the place in which he is detained; or
d. any labour required during a period of public emergency or calamity which threatens the life [or] well-being of the community; …
29. Public emergency.
(2) The President may issue a Proclamation of a state of public emergency only when –
a. Sierra Leone is at war; [or]
b. Sierra Leone is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war; or
c. there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the whole of Sierra Leone or any part thereof to such an extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security; or
d. there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the whole of Sierra Leone or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert the same; or
e. there is an occurrence of imminent danger, or the occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity affecting the community or a section of the community in Sierra Leone; or
f. there is any other public danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of Sierra Leone.
(5) During a period of public emergency, the President may make such regulations and take such measures as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of maintaining and securing peace, order and good government in Sierra Leone or any part thereof. 
Sierra Leone, Constitution, 1991, Sections 19(1), (2)(a)–(b) and (d), and 29(2) and (5).
Slovenia
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), subjecting civilians to forced labour is a war crime. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(1).
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
396. Compelling prisoners of war … to perform forbidden tasks. — 1. A penalty of military confinement for two to seven years shall be imposed on anyone who uses violence or intimidation against one or more prisoners of war to compel them to:
(b) perform tasks that are directly related to military operations or that are otherwise specifically forbidden by law or by international agreements.
2. If the violence consists of homicide, including even attempted murder or manslaughter, or of a severe or serious personal injury, the corresponding penalties prescribed in the criminal code shall be applied. The penalty of short-term imprisonment may, however, be increased. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 396.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Prisons Ordinance (1878), as amended to 2005, states:
PART V
DISCIPLINE OF PRISONERS
52. Due provision shall be made in every prison for the enforcement of hard labour in the cases of such prisoners as may be sentenced thereto[.]
PART VII
EMPLOYMENT OF PRISONERS
64. The medical officer shall from time to time examine the labouring prisoners while they are employed, and shall enter in his journal the name of any prisoner whose health he thinks likely to be injured by a continuance of hard labour, and thereupon such prisoner shall not again be employed at such labour until the medical officer certifies that he is fit for such employment; but if the medical officer certifies that such prisoner may without detriment to his health be employed on some lighter kind of labour, it shall be lawful for the jailer so to employ him.
65. Every prisoner shall perform such labour, whether manual or otherwise, as may be assigned to him; and the nature and the amount of labour assigned to and exacted from each class of such prisoners shall be in accordance with such rules as may be made in that behalf under section 94:
Provided that unconvicted prisoners or civil prisoners shall not be required to perform any labour in excess of such labour as may, in the opinion of the Superintendent, be reasonably necessary for keeping in a clean and proper condition the prison or part of the prison in which they are confined and the clothing, bedding, furniture and utensils allotted to prisoners of the class to which they are assigned, and for preparing and serving the food of prisoners of that class.
PART X
OFFENCES IN RELATION TO PRISONS
78. A prisoner shall be guilty of an offence against prison discipline if he –
(ix) refuses to work, or willfully mismanages work, or fails to perform his allotted task, or is idle, careless or negligent at work;
(x) willfully evades labour by self-disablement or by refusing to take food or by feigning madness or illness or other incapacity for work …
82. (1) Where a prisoner, undergoing any sentence or punishment of any description duly imposed on him, is convicted, under section 79 or section 81 or under any other written law, of any of the following offences against prison discipline, namely –
(a) refusing to work,
(b) failing to perform his allotted task,
(c) willfully evading labour by self-disablement or by refusing to take food or by feigning madness or illness or other incapacity for work, he shall, after undergoing such sentence or punishment as may be imposed on him for that prison offence, undergo for an additional period equal to the period during which that prison offence may have been continued, the sentence or punishment which he was undergoing at the time the prison offence was committed.
(2) Where any new sentence of imprisonment is imposed on a prisoner after the date of his conviction of any of the offences specified in subsection (1), such new sentence shall commence only on the expiry of the additional period referred to in that subsection.
PART XII
MISCELLANEOUS
94. (1) The Minister may from time to time make all such rules, not inconsistent with this Ordinance or any other written law relating to prisons, as may be necessary for the administration of the prisons in Sri Lanka and for carrying out or giving effect to the provisions and principles of this Ordinance.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, the Minister may make rules for all or any of the following purposes or matters:–
(f) the kind of labour to be exacted from prisoners at the different stages of their imprisonment, the manner in which and the place or places at which such labour may be exacted. 
Sri Lanka, Prisons Ordinance, 1878, as amended to 2005, Articles 52, 64–65, 78(ix)–(x), 82, 94(1) and (2)(f).
These articles apply to persons deprived of their liberty under Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005) pursuant to section 19 of these regulations.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Emergency Regulations (2005), as amended to 2008, states:
PART 2
TAKING INTO POSSESSION OF PREMISES AND REQUISITIONING OF VEHICLES AND OF PERSONAL SERVICES
10. The President may [by] order … require, or may delegate to any one or more authorities or officers specified in that behalf the power in like manner to require, any person to do any work or render any personal service in aid, or in connection with, national security or the maintenance of essential services.
Where any person contravenes or fails to comply with any order made under this regulation, he shall be guilty of an offence …
PART 5
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
40. (1) The President may by Order published in the Gazette … [declare] any service to be an essential service for the purpose of these regulations. Where any service is declared to be an essential service, any person who, on or after August 13, 2005 was engaged or employed in any work in connection with that service –
(a) fails or refuses after the lapse of one day from the date of such Order, to attend at his place of work or employment or such other place as may from time to time be designated by his employer or a person acting under the authority of his employer or fails or refuses to work or walks out or keeps away from work without working during the full period or any part of the normal working day as is required of him in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment in such service; or
(b) fails or refuses after the lapse of one day from the date of such Order, to perform such work as he may from time to time be directed by his employer or a person acting under the authority of his employer to perform at such time or within such periods as may be specified by such employer or such person for the performance of such work (whether such time or period is within, or outside normal working hours or on holidays) he shall, notwithstanding that he has failed or refused to so attend or to so work in furtherance of a strike or other organized action –
(i) be deemed for all purposes to have forthwith terminated or vacated his employment, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law or the terms and conditions o[f] any contract of employment; and
(ii) in addition, be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where the President by Order published in the Gazette declares any service to be an essential service any person employed or engaged in any work in connection with such service may be required to work outside normal working hours or on holidays.
(3) Where any service is declared by order made by the President to be an essential service –
(a) any person who, in any manner whatsoever –
(i) impedes, obstructs, delays or restricts the carrying on of that service, or
(ii) impedes, obstructs or prevents any other person employed in or in connection with the carrying on of that service to refrain from, attending at his place of work, or
(iii) incites, induces or encourages any other person employed in or in connection with the carrying on [of] that service to refrain from, attending at his place of work, or
(iv) compels, incites, induces or encourages the establishment or maintenance of any other service in lieu of, or parallel with, that service being a Government Department or branch thereof; or
(v) compels, incites, induces or encourages any other person employed in or in connection with the carrying on of that service to surrender or depart from his employment (whether or not such other person does so surrender of depart in consequence); or
(vi) prevents any other person from offering or accepting employment in or in connection with the carrying on of that service; or
(b) any person who, by any physical act or by any speech or writing incites, induces or encourages any other person to commit any act specified in Sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph (whether or not such other person commits in consequence any act so specified), shall be guilty of an offence under … these regulations.
45. (1) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any emergency regulation, or any order or rule made under any such regulation or any direction given or requirement imposed under any such regulation, he shall be guilty of an offence, and subject to any special provisions contained in such regulation, shall on conviction after trial before the High[] Court without a jury or before a Magistrate, be liable to rigorous imprisonment [with hard labour] for a term not less than three months and not exceeding five years …
(2) Where no punishment is prescribed in any emergency regulation for an offence under that regulation a person guilty of such offence shall, on conviction after trial without a jury before the High Court or before a Magistrate, be liable to the same punishment as that specified in paragraph (1) of this regulation. 
Sri Lanka, Emergency Regulations, 2005, as amended to 5 August 2008, Sections 10, 40(1)–(3) and 45(1)–(2).
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Penal Code (2006) provides:
Any person who –
(b) subjects or causes any person to be subjected to forced or compulsory labour;
shall be guilty of an offence.
“forced or compulsory labour” means all work or service which is exacted from a person under the threat of any penalty and for which such person has not offered himself voluntarily, except –
(a) any work or service exacted by virtue of any law for the time being relating to compulsory military service in relation to work or service of a purely military character;
(b) any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;
(c) any work or service exacted from any person as a punishment imposed by a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to be or placed, at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations;
(d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war or of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic of epizootic diseases, invasion by animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
(e) minor services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interests of the said community, and thereby considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services. 
Sri Lanka, Penal Code, 2006, Section 358A.
Thailand
Thailand’s Constitution (2007) states:
Forced labour shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the purpose of averting imminent public calamity or by virtue of the law which provides for its imposition during the time when the country is in a state of war or armed conflict, or when a state of emergency or martial law is declared. 
Thailand, Constitution, 2007, Section 38.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001) penalizes the deportation of the civilian population to forced labour. 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Article 408(1).
Uzbekistan
Under Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code (1994), ordering or subjecting civilians to forced labour is a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Code , 1994, Clause 152.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who ordered, assisted or otherwise was the direct executor of … forced labour of the population of Yugoslavia” committed war crimes. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3).
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, provides that subjecting civilians to forced labour is a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(1); see also Article 155 (enslavement).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Constitution (1979), as amended to 2009, states:
THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
14 Protection from slavery and forced labour
(1) No person shall be … required to perform forced labour.
26 Interpretation and other savings
(7) No measures taken in relation to a person who is a member of a disciplined force of a country with which Zimbabwe is at war or with which a state of hostilities exists and no law, to the extent that it authorises the taking of such measures, shall be held to be in contravention of the Declaration of Rights. 
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 1979, as amended to 2009, Sections 14(1) and 26(7).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Constitution (2013) states:
Chapter 4 – Declaration of Rights
55. Freedom from forced or compulsory labour
No person may be made to perform forced or compulsory labour.
86. Limitation of rights and freedoms
(2) The fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter may be limited only in terms of a law of general application and to the extent that the limitation is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including –
(b) the purpose of the limitation, in particular whether it is necessary in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, regional or town planning or the general public interest;
(3) No law may limit the following rights enshrined in this Chapter, and no person may violate them –
87. Limitations during public emergency
(1) In addition to the limitations permitted by section 86, the fundamental rights and freedoms set out in this Chapter may be further limited by a written law providing for measures to deal with situations arising during a period of public emergency, but only to the extent permitted by this section and the Second Schedule.
(2) A written law referred to in subsection (1) and any legislative measures taken under that law, must be published in the Gazette.
(3) Any limitation which a written law referred to in subsection (1) imposes on a fundamental right or freedom set out in this Chapter must not be greater than is strictly required by the emergency.
(4) No law that provides for a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislative or other measure taken in consequence of such a declaration may –
(a) indemnify, or permit or authorise an indemnity for, the State or any institution or agency of the government at any level, or any other person, in respect of any unlawful act; or
(b) limit any of the rights referred to in section 86(3), or authorise or permit any of those rights to be violated. 
Zimbabwe, Constitution, 2013, Sections 55, 86(2)(b) and (3) and 87.
Canada
In the Rudolph and Minister of Employment and Immigration case in 1992, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal upheld an order for the removal from Canada of the accused, a German national who during the Second World War had requested and supervised the deportation and use of foreign civilians as slave labourers in the production of V2 rockets, on the ground that he had committed outside Canada an act that constituted a war crime. 
Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Rudolph and Minister of Employment and Immigration case, Judgment, 1 May 1992.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
Taking into account … the development of customary international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflicts, the Constitutional Court notes that the fundamental guarantees stemming from the principle of humanity, some of which have attained ius cogens status, … [include] the prohibition of uncompensated or abusive forced labour. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment, 25 April 2007, p. 112.
[footnote in original omitted]
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2009, in the Basele Lutula and Others case, the Military Garrison Court of Kisangani convicted Mai-Mai militia members of various crimes, including beating civilians in order to subject them to forced labour. The Court stated:
B. Simple voluntary beating and wounding (article 46 of the CPO [Penal Code])
Article 46 of the CPO, book II, provides that: “Whoever voluntarily wounds or beats [a person] is liable to punishment of between eight days to six months’ imprisonment and a fine … ”.
It follows from this definition that the following three elements are constitutive of this offence:
- Material elements
- The human nature of the victim
- An element of intent
The material element consists of not only an act, but an act which is material. The act must be positive, not negative, that is, [not] an omission or inaction. The act must also be material such as beating [someone] with one’s hand or foot, or with a weapon or any other object or instrument.
In the present case, by punching … [the victims] and beating [them] with a stick and … a weapon … , the defendants Kipeleka Nyembo, Koti Okeke, Osumaka Loleka and Okanga Likunda carried out a material act in its double dimension.
This offence is only punishable if it is committed against living human persons.
Indeed, all the victims are living … human persons who inhabited Lieke, Losole or Likako.
Mens rea is required. The perpetrator must have acted in order to physically harm another person, that is, he must have the intention to wound or beat, regardless of the means and of the consent or mistake by the victim.
In the present case, the acts of punching and beating with a weapon … and a stick were committed consciously and voluntarily by the defendants against the victims … in order to make them carry out the heavy work of cutting down fruit trees. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Kisangani, Basele Lutula and Others case, Judgment, 3 June 2009, pp. 16–17.
France
In its judgement in the Roechling case in 1948, the General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany held the accused guilty of forcing prisoners of war to work in the German metallurgical industry, whose output was directly connected with the operations of war. The Tribunal considered that the use of the term “operations of war” should be understood as envisaging a prohibition of the employment of prisoners of war in work capable of increasing the war potential of the enemy. 
France, General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Roechling case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.
Netherlands
In its judgement in the Notomi case in 1947, the Temporary Court Martial at Makassar sentenced four of the accused to death and two others to imprisonment. The accused were responsible for a prisoner of war camp. They were found responsible for having subjected the prisoners to labour for which they were not suited. The Court thus considered that Articles 29 and 30 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention, which it considered to reflect customary international humanitarian law, had been violated. 
Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial at Makassar, Notomi Sueo case, Judgment, 4 January 1947.
Italy
In its decision in the Ferrini case in 2004, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation stated:
7.2. As has been noted … the facts forming the basis of the claim for compensation made by the plaintiff consist of his capture and deportation to Germany to be used as a “non-voluntary worker” by German companies.
In line with Resolution 95-I of 11 December 1946, with which the United Nations General Assembly confirmed the principles of international law of the Charter and the judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, both the deportation and subjection to forced labour should be included among “war crimes” and therefore among crimes governed by international law.
The Charter, signed in London on 8 August 1945, stated that the category of “war crimes” also includes “deportation to forced labour” (Article 6, letter (b)).
The decision from the Nuremberg Tribunal of 30 September 1946 noted that such conduct constituted a “flagrant” violation of the Convention pertaining to laws and customs of war on land, signed at the Hague on 18 October 1907, whose appended Regulations established that services could be demanded of “inhabitants (only) to meet the requirements of the occupation” (Article 52), therefore prohibiting any such services from being required for other purposes. The applicability of this provision was challenged by the defendants, which made reference to article 2 of the Convention, noting that the Convention had not been signed by any of the belligerent States. The objection was overruled by the Tribunal, noting that in 1939 (and therefore before the start of the conflict) the “rules” that it had established had been recognised and accepted by all civil nations and had therefore taken on the force and status of customary law.
7.3. The assimilation of deportation and the subjection of deportees to forced labour as an “international crime” is confirmed both by the principles of international law adopted in June 1950 by the United Nations International Law Commission (principle VI), and by the Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council of 25 May 1993, 927/93 and 8 November 1994 no. 955/94, through which were adopted, respectively, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Articles 2 and 5) and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Article 3). It is also confirmed by the Convention through which the International Criminal Court was established, signed in Rome in 17 July 1998 by 139 States (of which 120 ratified it) and which entered into force on 1 July 2002 (articles 7 and 8).
7.4. Even if the points made in the decision referred to in the previous paragraph are not taken into account, there can be no doubt that in this regard a norm of general customary international law has emerged for all components of the international community. 
Italy, Supreme Court of Cassation, Ferrini case, Decision, 11 March 2004, §§ 7.2–7.4.
Netherlands
In its judgement in the Koshiro case in 1947, the Temporary Court-Martial of Makassar of the Netherlands found that forcing prisoners of war to build ammunition depots and fill them with ammunition amounted to “employing prisoners of war on war work” and qualified it as a violation of Article 6 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and of Article 31 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention. 
Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial of Makassar, Koshiro case, Judgment, 5 February 1947.
Netherlands
In its judgement in the Rohrig and Others case in 1950, a Special Court of Cassation of the Netherlands found the accused guilty of having deported civilians from the Netherlands to Germany and having put them to forced labour in the construction of the fortifications of the German “West Wall”. 
Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Rohrig and Others case, Judgment, 15 May 1950.
Poland
In its judgement in the Greiser case in 1947, the Supreme National Tribunal of Poland at Poznan found the accused guilty of deporting the civilian population to forced labour camps. 
Poland, Supreme National Tribunal of Poland at Poznan, Greiser case, Judgment, 7 July 1946.
Sweden
In its judgement in the Arklöf case in 2006, Sweden’s Stockholm District Court stated:
The situation whereby the prisoners were used in work of a degrading and humiliating nature is in conflict with Geneva Convention 4 article 95 … The international law rules that have been violated all have customary status. This relates to serious violations of the international humanitarian rules. 
Sweden, Stockholm District Court, Arklöf case, Judgment, 18 December 2006, pp. 59–60.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In its judgement in the Student case in 1946, the UK Military Court at Lüneberg found the accused guilty of forcing prisoners of war to unload arms, ammunition and warlike stores from German aircraft. 
United Kingdom, Military Court at Lüneberg, Student case, Judgment, 10 May 1946.
United States of America
In its judgement in the Pohl case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, in considering charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, held:
Slavery may exist even without torture. Slaves may be well fed, well clothed, and comfortably housed, but they are still slaves if without lawful process they are deprived of their freedom by forceful restraint. We might eliminate all proof of ill-treatment, overlook the starvation, beatings, and other barbarous acts, but the admitted fact of slavery – compulsory uncompensated labour – would still remain. There is no such thing as benevolent slavery. Involuntary servitude, even if tempered by humane treatment, is still slavery. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Pohl case, Judgment, 3 November 1947.
United States of America
In the List case (The Hostages Trial) in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found the defendants guilty of committing acts of “deportation to slave labour of prisoners of war and members of the civilian populations in territories occupied by the German Armed Forces”. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, List case (The Hostages Trial), Judgment, 19 February 1948.
United States of America
In the Milch case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found the accused guilty of war crimes in that he was responsible for the slave labour and deportation to slave labour of the civilian populations of countries and territories occupied by the German armed forces, and in the enslavement, deportation, ill-treatment and terrorization of such persons. The Tribunal found the accused guilty of crimes against humanity for the same war crimes insofar as they related to foreign nationals. Judge Fitzroy D Phillips referred to the definition of crimes in the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10 and stated in his concurring opinion that the law treats as separate crimes and different types of crime deportation to slave labour (as a war crime) and enslavement (as a crime against humanity). 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Milch case, Judgment, 17 April 1947.
United States of America
In its judgement in the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial) in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, without attempting to define what constituted “work in direct relation to war operations” within the meaning of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention, held that the use of prisoners of war in coal mines under the existing conditions amounted to a violation of the Convention and, therefore, was a war crime. With regard to the deportation of the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories to slave labour, the Tribunal held:
The use of concentration camp labour and forced foreign workers at Auschwitz, with the initiative displayed by the officials of Farben in the procurement and utilization of such labour, is a crime against humanity and, to the extent that non-German nationals were involved, also a war crime, to which the slave labour programme of the Reich will not warrant the defence of necessity. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), Judgment, 29 July 1948.
United States of America
In its judgement in the Krupp case in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg referred to the statement of the law applicable to the deportation to slave labour and enslavement made by Judge Phillips in the Milch case and found the accused guilty of forcing French prisoners of war to work in the armament industry. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krupp case, Judgment, 30 June 1948.
United States of America
In its judgement in the Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial) in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found that forcing the civilian inhabitants of occupied territories to construct fortifications was prohibited work. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial), Judgment, 28 October 1948.
Croatia
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Croatia stated that its Constitution has decreed that “human liberty and individuality are inviolable and that forced or compulsory labour is prohibited”. 
Croatia, Second periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 2 December 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/HRV/2, submitted 28 November 2007, § 121.
Finland
In 2003, in its fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Finland stated:
Forced labour is also considered to amount to such an interference with the integrity of person that it is prohibited under the general provision in section 7 of the Constitution. According to section 127 of the Constitution, Finnish citizens are under an obligation to contribute to national defence. This obligation is provided for by an act of Parliament.
a) The obligation to contribute to national defence may be satisfied by performing either military or non-military service under the Military Service Act, work, or civil service referred to in the Civil Service Act. Under section 35 of the Military Service Act (amended on 21 April 1995), a person convicted or accused of treason or high treason may be ordered to perform work serving the interests of national defence, instead of regular military service or reserve obligations. A conscript refusing to perform the obligations relating to military service may also be ordered to such work (section 36 of the Military Service Act).
b) The provisions of the Emergency Powers Act … concerning the use of force in emergency situations, were amended in 2000. A person residing in Finland, who is at least 17 but less than 65 years old, may be ordered to perform work which is required by the necessity of the situation in accordance with the purpose of the Act, and which the said person may be expected to perform in view of his strength and capacity. When such an order is given, the person’s age, family relations and health as well as other personal circumstances shall be taken into account. A compensation corresponding to the remuneration required by existing collective agreements shall be paid for the work. 
Finland, Fifth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 24 July 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/FIN/2003/5, submitted 17 June 2003, § 130.
Myanmar
In a statement before the Committee on the Rights of the Child in 1997, the representative of Myanmar, responding to the comment that “children should work as ‘porters’ for the army – apparently on a systematic basis”, stated that he was aware that the law permitting the recruitment of child labour, in particular for portering duties, was incompatible with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and International Labour Organization standards and consideration was being given to repealing it. 
Myanmar, Statement before the Committee on the Rights of the Child, UN Doc. CRC/C/SR.359, 21 March 1997, §§ 17 and 43.
Serbia and Montenegro
In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Serbia and Montenegro reported:
153. Pursuant to the Charter of Human and Minority Rights and Civil Liberties [of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, adopted in 2003], derogation from human and minority rights guaranteed by this Charter is allowed following the declaration of a state of war or a state of emergency, if the existence of the State Union or a member State is threatened, but only to the extent necessary under the given circumstances. Measures of derogation from human and minority rights cease to have effect following the end of the state of war or the state of emergency. No derogation is permitted even during the state of war or the state of emergency from the … prohibition of slavery, servitude and forced labour …
215. … Article 13 [of the Charter of Human and Minority Rights and Civil Liberties of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, adopted in 2003] prohibits slavery, servitude and forced labour. This Article provides that sexual or economic exploitation of persons in a disadvantageous position is also considered forced labour, work or service; however, the work or service imposed on persons effectively convicted, persons in military service or in case of emergency situations threatening the life of the community are not considered forced labour. Likewise, the provisions of this Article prohibit any form of human trafficking. It is pointed out that, under the Charter, no derogation measures are applicable in any case to the right to inviolability of physical and mental integrity and to the prohibition of slavery, servitude and forced labour. 
Serbia and Montenegro, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SEMO/2003/1, 24 July 2003, §§ 153 and 215.
Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated:
Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II] and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include … Article 5 prescribing humane treatment of persons whose liberty ha[s] been restricted … due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, § 75.
Sri Lanka
In 2008, in its combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Sri Lanka stated:
Legislation was passed in a number of areas to strengthen children’s rights and enhance their protection. These included the following:
(c) The Penal Code (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 2006 strengthened the law against child trafficking … The new section 358A has criminalized outstanding worst forms of child labour as stipulated in the International Labour Organization (ILO) [1999] Convention [on the Worst Forms of Child Labour] No. 182: [including] forced or compulsory labour. 
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 20 January 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 24 October 2008, § 17(c).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states: “Even in war not everything is allowed. Various means and methods are prohibited, including … enforced recruitment of Prisoners of war or of Protected persons”. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 29.
Uganda
In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Uganda stated:
Article 25 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be held in slavery or servitude and no person shall be required to perform forced labour. Under this article, forced labour does not include –
(a) Any labour required in consequence of the sentence or order of a court;
(b) Any labour required of any person while that person is lawfully detained which, though not required in consequence of the sentence or order of a court, is reasonably necessary in the interests of hygiene or for the maintenance of the place at which the person is detained;
(c) Any labour required of a member of a disciplined force as part of that member’s duties as such or, in the case of a person who has conscientious objections to service as a member of a naval, military or air force, any labour which that person is required by law to perform in place of that service;
(d) Any labour required during any period when Uganda is at war or in case of any emergency or calamity which threatens the life and well being of the community, to the extent that the requiring of the labour is reasonably justifiable in the circumstances of any situation arising or existing during the period or as a result of the emergency or calamity, for the purpose of dealing with that situation;
(e) Any labour reasonably required as part of reasonable and normal communal or other civic obligations. 
Uganda, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 14 February 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UGA/2003/1, 25 February 2003, § 168.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2005, during a debate in the House of Lords, a UK Minister stated:
The Government strongly condemn forced labour in all its forms. We fully support the work of the ILO [International Labour Organization] and work closely with the organisation to ensure that the international framework to combat abuses of workers’ rights throughout the world is in place and effective. We also provide substantial financial support.
The UK has ratified the ILO’s “core labour standards”, including those covering the abolition of forced labour. We have also taken specific actions to tackle forced labour within the United Kingdom. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, Hansard, 7 July 2005, Vol. 673, Debates, col. 772.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (2010) states: “IHL requires parties to a conflict to respect and protect civilians. … [C]ivilians must not be … subjected to acts of violence such as … forced recruitment”. 
United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, March 2010, p. 4.
United States of America
In a report submitted in 1992 pursuant to paragraph 5 of UN Security Council Resolution 771 (1992) on grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV committed in the former Yugoslavia, the United States described acts of hard and forced labour perpetrated by the parties to the conflict. 
United States, Former Yugoslavia: Grave Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Third Submission), annexed to Letter dated 5 November 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24791, 10 November 1992, p. 14.
United States of America
In a concurrent resolution adopted in 2000, the US Congress expressed its sense concerning the war crimes committed by the Japanese military during the Second World War, in particular the enslavement of millions of Koreans. 
United States, House of Representatives (Senate concurring), Concurrent Resolution, H.CON. RES. 357, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, 19 June 2000.
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 Security Council
In two resolutions adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council expressed its grave concern and condemned in the strongest possible terms the violations of IHL and human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including evidence of a consistent pattern of forced labour. It referred to forced labour as a “grave violation of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1019, 9 November 1995, preamble; Res. 1034, 21 December 1995, preamble and § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004, the UN Security Council strongly condemned certain crimes involving children in armed conflict, including “trafficking, forced labour and all forms of slavery”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1539, 22 April 2004, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President following the death of persons detained by Bosnian Serb forces when the vehicle transporting them for work at the front was ambushed, the UN Security Council reminded the parties concerned that “they must not compel detainees to do work of a military nature or destined to serve a military purpose”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/25557, 8 April 1993.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly expressed its concern regarding “grave violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights in and around Srebrenica, and in the areas of Banja Luka and Sanski Most, including … forced labour”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, preamble, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the UN General Assembly expressed “deep concern at the Government of Sudan’s failure to take measures to halt the use of large numbers of women and children in the slave trade, in situations of servitude and for forced labour”. It urged the government to investigate and put an immediate end to these practices. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/112, 12 December 1996, §§ 1–3 and 12, voting record: 100-16-50-19.
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 or deprived of access to and provision of health-care services, hygiene and environmental sanitation, education, basic instruction and vocational training, taking into consideration the special needs of children with disabilities in detention, in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. 
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 2004 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly called upon the Government of Myanmar:
To take immediate action to implement fully concrete legislative, executive and administrative measures to eradicate the practice of forced labour by all organs of Government, including the armed forces, to cooperate with the International Labour Organization, and to implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930 (Convention No. 29), of the International Labour Organization. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/263, 23 December 2004, § 3(h), adopted without a vote.
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 2005 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly:
2. Expresses grave concern at:
(a) … violations suffered by persons belonging to ethnic nationalities, women and children, especially in non-ceasefire areas, including but not limited to … forced labour, including child labour …
(h) The fact that the Government of Myanmar, as noted by the 2005 International Labour Conference, has still not implemented the recommendations of the International Labour Organization Commission of Inquiry, has yet to demonstrate its stated determination to eliminate forced labour and take the necessary measures to comply with the International Labour Organization Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930 (Convention No. 29), and has yet to demonstrate commitment at the highest level to a substantive policy dialogue that can address the forced labour problem;
3. Strongly calls upon the Government of Myanmar:
(j) … to resolve outstanding allegations of forced labour, [and] give clear assurances that no action will be taken against persons lodging complaints of forced labour. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/233, 23 December 2005, §§ 2(a) and (h) and 3(j), adopted without a vote.
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 2006 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly:
1. Welcomes:
(g) The initial measures to combat impunity concerning forced labour, including the six-month moratorium on arrests of individuals who report forced labour and the release of two prominent detainees;
2. Expresses grave concern at:
(a) The ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar … [including] forced labour, … child labour; [and] trafficking in persons;
3. Strongly calls upon the Government of Myanmar:
(h) To urgently resolve the serious issues identified by the International Labour Organization concerning compliance with international labour standards, including to give clear assurances that no action will be taken against persons lodging complaints of forced labour, to resolve outstanding allegations of forced labour, to establish a credible mechanism for dealing with individual complaints of forced labour, [and] to respect the International Labour Organization presence in Myanmar. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/232, 22 December 2006, §§ 1(g), 2(a) and 3(h), voting record: 82-25-45-40.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the girl child, the UN General Assembly:
4. Urges all States that have not yet signed and ratified or acceded to the Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, 1973 (Convention No. 138) and the Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999 (Convention No. 182), of the International Labour Organization to consider doing so;
11. Also urges States to ensure that the applicable requirements of the International Labour Organization for the employment of girls and boys are respected and effectively enforced and that girls who are employed have equal access to decent work, and equal payment and remuneration, are protected from economic exploitation, discrimination, sexual harassment, violence and abuse in the workplace, are aware of their rights and have access to formal and non-formal education, skills development and vocational training, and further urges States to develop gender-sensitive measures, including national action plans where appropriate, to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, including commercial sexual exploitation, slavery-like practices, forced and bonded labour, trafficking and hazardous forms of child labour;
13. Also urges all States to enact and enforce legislation to protect girls from all forms of violence and exploitation, including … forced labour and … to develop age-appropriate safe and confidential programmes and medical, social and psychological support services to assist girls who are subjected to violence and discrimination. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/140, 18 December 2007, §§ 4, 11 and 13, adopted without a vote.
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 General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly:
3. Welcomes:
(d) The conclusion between the International Labour Organization and the Government of Myanmar of an understanding designed to provide a mechanism to enable victims of forced labour to seek redress;
5. Calls upon the Government of Myanmar:
(f) To continue its efforts with the International Labour Organization towards the effective implementation of the national mechanism established to receive complaints of forced labour. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/222, 22 December 2007, §§ 3(d) and 5(f), voting record: 83-22-47-40.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged the Government of Sudan, following Sudan’s letter to the Centre for Human Rights of 22 March 1996, to carry out its investigations without delay into cases of slavery, servitude, the slave trade, forced labour and similar institutions and practice, as reported by the Special Rapporteur. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/73, 23 April 1996, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed concern at the widespread use of forced labour “including for work on infrastructure projects and as porters for the army”. It specifically condemned this practice in relation to women and children. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/63, 21 April 1998, § 3(a), (c) and (d), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern at “forced labour, including child labour” and called upon the Government of Myanmar:
To take immediate action to implement fully concrete legislative, executive and administrative measures to eradicate the practice of forced labour by all organs of government, including the armed forces.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/12, 16 April 2003, §§ 3(c) and 4(b), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all States to “take appropriate steps to ensure that no child in detention is sentenced to forced labour”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/48, 20 April 2004, § 35(c), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern at “forced labour, including child labour” and called upon the Government of Myanmar:
To take immediate action to implement fully concrete legislative, executive and administrative measures to eradicate the practice of forced labour by all organs of government, including the armed forces. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/61, 21 April 2004, §§ 3(d) and 4(b), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the practice of child labour, particularly domestic labour and the involvement of children in exploitative and hazardous labour”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/80, 21 April 2004, § 9(d), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern at “forced labour, including child labour” and called upon the Government of Myanmar:
To take immediate action to implement fully concrete legislative, executive and administrative measures to eradicate the practice of forced labour by all organs of Government, including the armed forces, and to implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by Myanmar of the Convention concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour, 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization, and to take the action foreseen in the report of the very High-Level Team as presented to the Governing Body of the International Labour Office at its 292nd session in March 2005 in document GB.292/7/3, before the International Labour Conference of June 2005. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/10, 14 April 2005, §§ 3(f) and 6(c), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the abduction of children in Africa, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
1. Condemns the practice of abduction of children for various purposes, inter alia, for involvement in armed forces or armed groups, for participation in hostilities, for sexual exploitation and forced labour;
2. Also condemns the abduction of children from camps of refugees and internally displaced persons by armed forces and armed groups, and their subjection of children to participation in fighting, torture, killing and rape as victims and as perpetrators. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/43, 19 April 2005, §§ 1–2, 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 forced labour”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/44, 19 April 2005, § 27(d), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in Nepal, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned “the repeated practices of members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), such as … forced recruitment and labour targeted at civilians”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, § 4(a), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights firmly condemned “the practice of child labour, particularly domestic labour, and the involvement of children in exploitative and hazardous labour”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/83, 21 April 2005, § 7(c), adopted without a vote.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1998, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights on systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during armed conflict, including internal armed conflict, having carried out a comprehensive study of the question of rape and other forms of sexual violence during armed conflict, stated:
In all respects and in all circumstances, sexual slavery is slavery and its prohibition is a jus cogens norm. The “comfort stations” that were maintained by the Japanese military during the Second World War (see appendix) and the “rape camps” that have been well documented in the former Yugoslavia are particularly egregious examples of sexual slavery. Sexual slavery also encompasses situations where women and girls are forced into “marriage”, domestic servitude or other forced labour that ultimately involves forced sexual activity, including rape by their captors. For instance, in addition to the cases documented in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, there are reports from Myanmar of women and girls who have been raped and otherwise sexually abused after being forced into “marriages” or forced to work as porters or minefield sweepers for the military. In Liberia, there are similar reports of women and girls who have been forced by combatants into working as cooks and who are also held as sexual slaves. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices during Wartime, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13, 22 June 1998, § 30.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In 1974, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights was authorized by ECOSOC to establish a Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery
to review developments in the fields of slavery, the slave trade and the slavery-like practices, of apartheid and colonialism, the traffic in persons and the exploitation of the prostitution of others, as defined in the 1926 Slavery Convention, the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery and the 1949 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Report on its 26th Session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/30, 16 July 2001, § 1.
In its report containing recommendations to the Sub-Commission in 2001, the Working Group reaffirmed that “every woman, man and child has a fundamental right to be free from all forms of slavery and servitude” and that “forced labour is a contemporary form of slavery”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, Report on its 26th Session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/30, 16 July 2001, § 136, Recommendation 1 (General and preamble) and Recommendation 10, § 1 (Forced labour).
No data.
No data.
International Military Tribunal for Germany
The indictment in the case of the Major War Criminals before the IMT Nuremberg in 1945 listed “enslavement” among crimes against humanity. It added:
The defendants conscripted and forced the inhabitants to labor and requisitioned their services for purposes other than meeting the needs of the armies of occupation and to an extent far out of proportion to the resources of the countries involved. All the civilians so conscripted were forced to work for the German war effort. Civilians were required to register and many of those who registered were forced to join the Todt Organization and the Speer Legion, both of which were semi-military organizations involving some military training. These acts violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter. 
IMT Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Indictment, 20 November 1945, Counts 1, 3(E), 3(H) and 4.
International Military Tribunal for Germany
In its judgement in the case of the Major War Criminals in 1945, the IMT Nuremberg stated that “the laws relating to forced labour by the inhabitants of occupied territories are found in Article 52 of The Hague Convention” and that “the policy of the German occupation authorities was in flagrant violation of the terms of this Convention”. 
IMT Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Indictment, 20 November 1945, Judgment (Slave Labour Policy).
International Military Tribunal for the Far East
The indictment in the case of the Major War Criminals before the IMT Tokyo in 1946 contained references to forced labour and mentioned violations, including “deportation and enslavement of the inhabitants … contrary to [the 1907 Hague Regulations] and to the Laws and Customs of War: Large numbers of the inhabitants or [occupied] territories were … arrested and interned without justification, sent to forced labour …”.  
IMT Tokyo, Case of the Major War Criminals, Indictment, 29 April 1946, Count 53, Appendix D.
International Military Tribunal for the Far East
In its judgement in the case of the Major War Criminals in 1948, the IMT Tokyo stated with respect to the use of labour by civilians from occupied territories:
Having decided upon a policy of employing prisoners of war and civilian internees on work directly contributing to the prosecution of the war, and having established a system to carry that policy into execution, the Japanese went further and supplemented this source of manpower by recruiting labourers from the native population of the occupied territories. This recruiting of labourers was accomplished by false promises, and by force … The labourers were transported to and confined in camps. Little or no distinction appears to have been made between these conscripted labourers on the one hand and prisoners of war and civilian internees on the other hand. They were all regarded as slave labourers to be used to the limit of their endurance. 
IMT Tokyo, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgment, 12 November 1948, pp. 416–417.
International Court of Justice
In its judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) in 2012, the ICJ stated:
Another category involved members of the civilian population who, like Mr. Luigi Ferrini, were deported from Italy to what was in substance slave labour in Germany … The Court considers that there can be no doubt that this conduct was a serious violation of the international law of armed conflict applicable in 1943–1945. 
ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment, 3 February 2012, § 52.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Krnojelac case before the ICTY in 1997, the accused was charged with “slavery” as a violation of the laws and customs of war pursuant to Article 3 of the 1993 ICTY Statute, on the basis of both the 1926 Slavery Convention and customary international law, and with “enslavement” as a crime against humanity pursuant to Article 5 of the 1993 ICTY Statute. The case revealed that detainees were forced to work in mines, construction, farming, mine detection and trench-digging on the front line. “The detainees were not paid for their work. Work was not voluntary. Even ill or injured detainees were forced to work. Those who refused were sent to solitary confinement.” 
ICTY, Krnojelac case, Initial Indictment, 17 June 1997, §§ 5.36–5.41.
In its judgement in 2002, the Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of “enslavement as a crime against humanity” and of “slavery as a violation of the laws or customs of war”. 
ICTY, Krnojelac case, Judgment, 15 March 2002, § 525.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
The Naletilić and Martinović case before the ICTY in 2001 dealt with crimes surrounding the military offensive launched in May 1993 by the Army of the Republic of Croatia (HV) and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) against the Bosnian Muslim population of Mostar (south-western Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH). Each of the two accused was charged with violations of the laws or customs of war (unlawful labour), punishable under Article 3 of the 1993 ICTY Statute. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Second Amended Indictment, 16 October 2001, § 44, Count 5.
The indictment stated:
37. … [O]n a regular basis, detainees were taken from the HELIODROM camp and other detention centres to the bases of the KB, in the city of Mostar, for eventual transfer to the confrontation lines. The detainees were forced, at great risk to their lives, to perform various dangerous military support tasks benefiting the HV and HVO; including: digging trenches, building defences with sandbags, carrying wounded or killed HV or HVO soldiers, carrying ammunition and explosives across the confrontation line, and placing them in front of ABiH positions. These tasks were often performed by the detainees, under conditions which exposed them directly to hostile fire, and thereby served the purpose of protecting HVO soldiers. Consequently, the detainees were turned into human shields. On other occasions, the KB used detainees exclusively to protect the KB and other HV and HVO soldiers from hostile fire or to attract hostile fire on the detainees in order to ascertain the ABiH positions.
44. [The accused] and their subordinates also forced Bosnian Muslim detainees to perform labour in locations other than the front lines. The Bosnian Muslim detainees were forced, inter alia, to engage and participate in the following works: building, maintenance and reparation works in private properties of the members and commanders of the KB; digging trenches, building defences in the positions of the KB or other HV and HVO forces. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Second Amended Indictment, 16 October 2001, §§ 37 and 44.
In considering these charges the Trial Chamber noted that the Treaty provisions of “unlawful labour” now form part of customary international law:
The charge of unlawful labour is also brought under Article 51 of Geneva Convention IV and Articles 49, 50 and 52 of Geneva Convention III. The alleged violations of those provisions fall under Article 3 of the Statute, and more specifically within the category, as defined by the Appeals Chamber, constituted by infringements of the Geneva Conventions other than those classified as grave breaches. As such, they clearly infringe upon a rule of international humanitarian law. Moreover, it is apparent from the jurisprudence of the Tribunal that the Geneva Conventions as a whole, including the above-mentioned provisions, have become part of customary international law, and entail the individual criminal responsibility of the offender. Accordingly, the Chamber finds those requirements under Article 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute are met in the present case. The additional requirement that the alleged offences of unlawful labour are serious enough to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Statute will be examined on a case by case basis and in light of the evidence introduced. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, § 250.
The Trial Chamber subsequently found both defendants guilty of unlawful labour under Articles 3 and 7(3) of the 1993 ICTY Statute. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, § 333.
Naletilić and Martinović were sentenced to 20 years’ and 18 years’ imprisonment, respectively. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, §§ 765 and 769.
The Appeals Chamber subsequently set aside, in part, Martinović’s conviction for unlawful labour but affirmed the sentences of both Naletilić and Martinović. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment on Appeal, 3 May 2006, X Disposition.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Simić case in 2003, in which the accused was charged with persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, the ICTY Trial Chamber, (citing the ICTY Krnojelac trial and Appeal Chamber judgements and the Naletelić trial judgement) found:
85. Trial Chambers of the Tribunal have held that the charge of “forced labour assignments” may constitute the basis of the crime of enslavement as a crime against humanity under Article 5 (c) [of the 1993 ICTY Statute], and the offence of slavery as a violation of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of the Statute, and as such this offence is of sufficient gravity to support a charge of persecution.
86. The underlying acts of the charge of “forced labour assignments” infringe upon certain provisions of Geneva Conventions III and IV, and as such may constitute a violation of the laws or customs of war other than grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, falling within the scope of Article 3 of the Statute. It is settled case-law of the Tribunal that the law of the Geneva Conventions is part of customary international law. …
87. International humanitarian law generally prohibits forced or involuntary labour in international, as well as internal armed conflicts. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment, 17 October 2003, §§ 85–87.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgement in the Blaškić case in 2004, the ICTY Appeals Chamber stated on the matter of forced labour and cruel treatment:
The Appeals Chamber finds that the use of persons taking no active part in hostilities to prepare military fortifications for use in operations and against the forces with whom those persons identify or sympathise is a serious attack on human dignity and causes serious mental (and depending on the circumstances physical) suffering or injury. Any order to compel protected persons to dig trenches or to prepare other forms of military installations, in particular when such persons are ordered to do so against their own forces in an armed conflict, constitutes cruel treatment. 
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment on Appeal, 29 July 2004, § 597.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Rašević case before the ICTY in 2006, the accused, Mitar Rašević, commander of the guards at Kazneno-Popravni Dom (“KP Dom”, detention centre in Foča, Bosnia and Herzegovina), until at least October 1994, and Savo Todović, deputy commander of the KP Dom until at least August 1994, were charged with enslavement as a crime against humanity, punishable under Article 5(c) of the 1993 ICTY Statute, and with slavery as a violation of the laws or customs of war, as recognized under the 1926 Slavery Convention and international customary law and punishable under Article 3 of the 1993 ICTY Statute. 
ICTY, Rašević case, Second Joint Amended Indictment, 24 March 2006, §§ 51–57, Counts 11, 12.
It was alleged that:
51. From May 1992 until October 1994, [the accused], acting individually or in concert with other known and unknown members of the joint criminal enterprise … planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of enslavement of Muslim and other non-Serb male detainees at the KP Dom facility. [The accused Todović] played a central role in the work done by the detainees. He was responsible for assigning work duties to the detainees and supervised these assignments on a daily basis …
52. From May 1992 until October 1994, detainees with special skills were subjected to forced labour within and outside of the prison. To facilitate forced labour outside the KP Dom, [the accused Todović] co-operated with external military and civilian authorities, including the hand-over of detainees to military personnel. High-level prison staff at the KP Dom, including [the accused Rašević] and, in particular, [the accused Todović], assigned detainees to perform particular work …
53. The guards called out selected detainees from their cells and either took them to their place of work or handed them over to authorities outside the prison hierarch to perform various work. The detainees were usually forced to work on a daily basis from 7 a.m. to at least 3 or 4 p.m. They were not paid for their work nor was it voluntary. Even ill or injured detainees were forced by [the accused Todović] personally to work. During their work, the detainees were under armed supervision either by the regular prison guards or by Serb soldiers.
54. Within the prison, the detainees had to work in the furniture factory and the metal and mechanical workshop. In the workshop, the detainees had to repair army vehicles. The labour performed by the detainees was challenging and physically exhausting.
55. Outside the prison, the detainees were forced to perform farming jobs at the prison outpost Brioni, to work in mills and the Miljevina mine, and to clean up rubble of damaged buildings at various places in Foča. [The accused Rašević] was present while detainees were performing forced labour at the farm. During the winter of 1992 to 1993, detainees were forced to repair the private house of Milorad Krnojelac, the warden of the KP Dom, to install a bar in the house of one of his sons, and to furnish a store for one of his sons.
56. On 18 September 1992, detainees FWS-109 and G.K. were called out by a KP Dom guard for a supposed prisoner exchange. Instead, [the accused Todović] handed the two detainees over to military authorities from outside the prison who took them to the Kalinovik police station to be used as drivers for the detection of land mines. Between September 1992 and March 1993, on at least 5 occasions, they had to drive ahead of Serb convoys to detect land mines. The detainees worked under severe pressure with the danger that every day at work would be their last. 
ICTY, Rašević case, Second Joint Amended Indictment, 24 March 2006, §§ 51–56.
The Rašević case did not go to trial before the ICTY. Following the Prosecution’s request for a referral of the case, the accused were transferred to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2006.
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Sesay case before the SCSL, the accused Sesay and Kallon, senior commanders in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, and the accused Gbao, senior commander in the RUF and AFRC/RUF forces, were each charged with eight counts of crimes against humanity, eight counts of war crimes, and two counts of other serious violations of international humanitarian law. In its judgement in the case in 2009, the Trial Chamber, in considering the rights of an occupying power to compel people in the occupied territory to work, stated:
[W]e consider it important to draw attention to the basic conditions regulating the right of an occupying power to compel protected persons to work. Firstly, an occupying power may only force civilians to labour in order to secure the basic needs and living conditions of the civilian population or the needs of the occupying army. Further conditions include that the workers must be over 18 years of age, the workers must be paid a fair wage and the work must be proportionate to their physical and intellectual capacities. 
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment, 2 March 2009, § 985.
[footnote in original omitted]
Human Rights Committee
In 2004, in its concluding observations on the situation of civil and political rights in Equatorial Guinea, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee … is also concerned at the practice of imposing forced labour on the inmates of the various detention facilities.
The State party should ensure that all the provisions of article 10 of the [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] are fully respected in prisons and other detention facilities. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the situation of civil and political rights in Equatorial Guinea, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/GNQ, 13 August 2004, § 6.
[emphasis in original]
Committee on the Rights of the Child
In 1993, in its concluding observations on the report of Sudan, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed “its concern regarding the issues of forced labour and slavery”. 
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the report of Sudan, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.6, 18 February 1993, § 12.
Committee on the Rights of the Child
In 1997, in its concluding observations on the report of Myanmar, the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its serious concern at “cases of children systematically being forced into labour, including as porters” and strongly recommended the abolition of children’s involvement in forced labour. 
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations on the report of Myanmar, UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.69, 24 January 1997, §§ 21 and 42.
European Commission of Human Rights
In its admissibility decision in Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium in 1979, the European Commission of Human Rights (guided by Article 1 of the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery) observed that the distinction between servitude and forced labour was not explicitly stated in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and that “it may be considered, however, that in addition to the obligation to perform certain services for others, the notion of servitude embraces the obligation for the ‘serf’ to live on another person’s property and the impossibility of altering his condition”. 
European Commission of Human Rights, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, Admissibility Decision, 5 July 1979, p. 59.
European Court of Human Rights
In its judgement in Van der Mussele v. Belgium in 1983, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights “lays down a general and absolute prohibition of forced or compulsory labour” but it “does not define what is meant by ‘forced or compulsory labour’”. The Court referred to the definitions provided in the 1930 Forced Labour Convention and stated:
For there to be forced or compulsory labour, for the purposes of Article [4(2)] of the [1950 European Convention on Human Rights], two cumulative conditions have to be satisfied: not only must the labour be performed by the person against his or her will, but either the obligation to carry it out must be “unjust” or “oppressive” or its performance must constitute “an avoidable hardship”, in other words be “needlessly distressing” or “somewhat harassing”. 
European Court of Human Rights, Van der Mussele v Belgium, Judgment, 20 November 1983, § 37.
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
In its Prisoners of War (Ethiopia’s Claim) partial award in 2003, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, in considering the circumstances in which forced labour was permitted, stated that “Article 49 of [1949] Geneva Convention III does not forbid a Detaining Power to compel POWs [prisoners of war] who are physically fit to work, but it does forbid compelling officers to work”. 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 1 July 2003, § 127.
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
In its Central Front (Ethiopia’s Claim) partial award in 2004, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, in considering the prohibition on uncompensated forced labour, stated:
Article 51 of [the 1949] Geneva Convention IV indicates that civilians can be required to labor on behalf of the military forces of an occupying power, but only if compensated and only “on work which is necessary … for the need of the army of occupation.” Work supporting military operations is prohibited. 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Central Front, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 28 April 2004, § 89.
National Society (Azerbaijan)
In 1994, the Red Crescent Society of Azerbaijan denounced the treatment of prisoners by Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, including forced labour. 
Red Crescent Society of Azerbaijan, Declaration of the Executive Committee, 21 April 1994.
No data.
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 44 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take part in military operations against its own country is prohibited.” 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 44.
Hague Regulations (1899)
Article 52 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides:
Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from … inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their country. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 52.
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 23(h) of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war.” 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 23(h).
Hague Regulations (1907)
Article 52 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides:
Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from … inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country. 
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 52.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 51, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power may not compel protected persons to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces. No pressure or propaganda which aims at securing voluntary enlistment is permitted.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 51, first para.
Geneva Conventions III and IV
Article 130 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provide that compelling a prisoner of war or a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power is a grave breach of these instruments. 
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 130; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 147.
Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam
Article 8 of the 1973 Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam concerning the return of military personnel and civilians provides that captured military personnel of the parties and captured foreign civilians of the parties “shall not be forced to join the armed forces of the detaining party”. 
Protocol on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam concerning the Return of Captured Military Personnel and Foreign Civilians and Captured and Detained Vietnamese Personnel, signed on behalf of the United States of America, the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam, Paris, 27 January 1973, Article 8.
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(a)(v) and (b)(xv) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[c]ompelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power” and “[c]ompelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war” constitute war crimes in international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(a)(v) and (b)(xv)
UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea
Article 9 of the 2003 UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea provides:
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers shall be the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, crimes against humanity as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and such other crimes as defined in Chapter II of the Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers as promulgated on 10 August 2001. 
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 9.
In accordance with Article 2 of the Agreement, Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended, further implements these provisions. 
Agreement between the UN and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 2.
Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
According to Article 22(2)(a) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” is considered as an exceptionally serious war crime and as a serious violation of the principles and rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. 
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 22(2)(a).
ICTY Statute
Article 2 of the 1993 ICTY Statute gives the Tribunal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and expressly includes “compelling a prisoner of war or civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile power”. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 2.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Under Article 20(a)(v) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[c]ompelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” constitutes 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(a)(v).
UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(a)(v) and (b)(xv), “[c]ompelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power” and “[c]ompelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war” constitute war crimes in international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(a)(vi) and (b)(xv).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
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.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states that “compelling PW [prisoners of war] or other protected persons to serve in the forces of a hostile power” is a crime which warrants the institution of criminal proceedings. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1305(e); see also Defence Force Manual (1994), § 1315(e).
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “The population [in occupied areas] cannot be compelled to participate in any work which would involve participation in military operations.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1222.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
9.24 … Enemy nationals cannot be compelled to take part in operations against their own country even if they were in your service before the outbreak of hostilities.
12.40 … The population cannot be compelled to participate in any work which would involve participation in military operations …
13.25 Grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions consist of any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Convention:
• compelling a PW [prisoner of war] or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power
13.29 Provisions of the Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognised as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:
• to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 9.24, 12.40, 13.25 and 13.29.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the armed forces of the enemy is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 55.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) prohibits “compelling nationals of the enemy State to take part in military operations against their own country, even if they used to serve you before the outbreak of hostilities”. The same prohibition applies to prisoners of war. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 12, § 2-1 and Fascicule III, p. 12.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) prohibits “compelling nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country”. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “[i]t is prohibited … to compel prisoners of war to participate in military activities”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I, p. 15; see also Part I bis, pp. 11, 24 and 56
The Regulations also states that “compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power” constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, pp. 26–27; see also Part I bis, pp. 46, 67 and 115.
The Regulations further states: “The Occupying Power may not compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to serve in its armed forces or auxiliaries.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 107.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) prohibits “compelling nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “compelling persons to serve in the armed forces of the enemy power” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 295, § 661.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 32: Prohibitions
It is prohibited to soldiers in combat:
- to compel the nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 32.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:
The occupying power is prohibited from compelling protected persons to enlist in its armed forces and may not use any pressure or propaganda aimed at securing their voluntary enlistment. To compel the population of occupied territory so to enlist is a grave breach of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV]. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-5, § 42.
The manual adds that “it is also a breach to compel a PW [prisoner of war] to serve in the forces of the hostile power” and that “in the case of civilians in the hands of the adverse party, it is also a grave breach … to compel a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, §§ 13 and 14.
The manual further states:
In accordance with the Hague Rules, a number of acts are “especially forbidden” … compelling enemy nationals to take part in hostilities against their own country, even if they were members of the particular belligerent’s forces before the commencement of the conflict. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, p. 16-3, § 20.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers:
The occupying power is prohibited from compelling protected persons to enlist in its armed forces and may not use any pressure or propaganda aimed at securing their voluntary enlistment. To compel the population of occupied territory so to enlist is a grave breach of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV]. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1224.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states: “It is also a grave breach to compel a PW [prisoner of war] to serve in the forces of the hostile power”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1607.5.
In the same chapter, the manual states: “In the case of civilians in the hands of the adverse party, it is also a grave breach: … c. to compel a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1607.6.c.
The manual further states:
In accordance with the Hague Rules, a number of acts are “especially forbidden”. The commission of the following especially forbidden [act] is a war crime:
i. compelling enemy nationals to take part in hostilities against their own country, even if they were members of the particular belligerent’s forces before the commencement of the conflict. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.2.i.
Canada
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states: “Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva Conventions] and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] include any of the following actions[:] … Compelling PW [prisoners of war] or other protected persons to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power.” 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 103.2.c.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “While they are waiting to be taken to superiors, captured combatants: … may not be forced to take part in activities of a military nature or having a military objective”. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section II, § 2.1.
In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states: “The following prohibitions must be respected: … forcing nationals of the enemy nation to take part in operations against their own country, even if they were in your service before the start of the hostilities.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section I.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states: “During combat, it is also prohibited for servicemen to … force nationals of the adversary to engage in military operations against their country”. 
Central African Republic, Décret 09.411 portant règlement de discipline générale dans les Armées, Ministre de la Défense Nationale, des Anciens Combattants, des Victimes de Guerre, du Désarmement et de la Restructuration de l’Armée, 10 December 2009, Article 12(11).
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that prisoners “may not be incorporated into the enemy armed forces”. 
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. 37.
The manual also states that “forced conscription by the enemy power” 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.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
I.3. War crimes
This is by far the breach which can take the most varied forms. It relates to the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, namely the following acts directed against the persons or objects protected by these acts:
- compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of the hostile Power. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 44–45.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “It is prohibited for combatants to … force the nationals of the adverse party to take part in military operations against their country”. 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 30(3).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states that the following “are currently considered as war crimes … if committed against any person not or no longer participating in hostilities: … compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the armed forces of a hostile Power”. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 50.
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, prohibits “compelling nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country”. 
France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis (2).
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) stipulates that “compelling [prisoners of war] to serve in enemy armed forces” is a war crime under the law of armed conflict. 
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, § 3.4.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides that prisoners of war “shall not be compelled to take part in activities with a military character or objective”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 102.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states that “compelling prisoners of war and civilians to serve in the forces of the adversary” is 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.
Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “It is forbidden for members of the armed forces: … To force the nationals of enemy country to take part in operations against their own country.” 
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(k).
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “The Conventions expressly forbid harnessing prisoners to the war effort of the detaining state.” 
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 imprisoning country is entitled to employ prisoners-of-war in the running and maintenance of the camp, in agriculture, public works (that are not of a military nature) and services for the public benefit that are not of a military nature. The Conventions specifically prohibit the mobilising of prisoners-of-war for the war effort of the country in which they are held. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 33.
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) forbids the compelling “of enemy soldiers to participate in military actions against their own country”. 
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, § 11.
The manual provides: “The inhabitants of an occupied territory … shall not be enrolled into the national armed forces, or … provide services directly linked to the war.” 
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, § 39.
The manual further states: “In no case shall civilian persons be compelled to carry out works which would oblige them to take part in military operations.” 
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, § 48(11).
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides that captured combatants “shall not be compelled to engage in activities having a military character or purpose”. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 7.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) prohibits “compelling nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country”. 
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) prohibits “compelling nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country”. 
Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(2).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides that compelling a protected person to serve a hostile power is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-5.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “a prisoner of war may not accept certain privileges in exchange for his consent to work in an armaments factory. Prisoners of war may not do any work of a military nature”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0237.
The manual further states:
0735. A detaining power may set prisoners of war to work. In doing so, it must take account of their age, sex, health, rank and physical fitness. Officers may not be required to work, while non-commissioned officers may perform only supervisory tasks. Other prisoners of war may be deployed only to a limited extent.
0736. A prisoner of war may never be ordered to carry out activities which would increase the adversary’s military potential, or to work in an industry which would form a legitimate military target for his/her own armed forces. However, prisoners of war may be ordered to work on the administration, set-up and maintenance of their camps. In addition, activities in the following fields may be ordered:
- agriculture;
- industry in general, but with express exceptions;
- metallurgical, mechanical and chemical industries;
- public works and building operations that have no military character or purpose;
- transport and storage of goods that are not military in character or purpose;
- activities in the field of business, trade or arts and crafts;
- domestic services;
- public utility services having no military character or purpose.
The working conditions may not be inferior to those in which nationals of the detaining power perform similar work.
0737. A prisoner of war is not bound to carry out unhealthy or dangerous work. This is, however, possible on a voluntary basis. Prisoners of war are entitled to be paid for work done. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0735–0737.
In its chapter on the protection of the civilian population, the manual states:
0814. Protected persons may be compelled to work only to the same extent as nationals of the country in whose territory they are located. They may also only be compelled to do work which is normally necessary to ensure the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transport and health of human beings and which is not directly related to the conduct of military operations …
Section 7 - Occupied areas
0833. Persons over the age of 18 may be obliged to work. This may be only within the occupied area, and the activities must serve the needs of the army of occupation, public utilities or the food supply, accommodation, clothing, transport or health of the population. The requisitioning of a workforce must in no case lead to mobilization of workers in an organization of a military or semi-military character. Employment on building defence works is also not permitted. Protected persons may not be deployed either on work which would compel them to take part in war operations. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0814 and 0833.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) refers to Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and provides: “A belligerent is forbidden to compel the subjects of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the service of the belligerent before the commencement of the war.” It further provides:
The Occupying Power must not compel protected persons to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces but [Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] lays down expressly that pressure or propaganda which aims at securing voluntary enlistment in those forces is prohibited. To compel the population of occupied territory so to enlist is a grave breach of [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV]. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1320.2.
According to the manual, it is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV to compel a prisoner of war and a protected civilian to serve in the forces of the hostile power. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1702(2) and 1702(3)(c).
The manual also states that it is a war crime and an offence against the law of armed conflict to compel “enemy nationals to take part in hostilities against their own State, even if they were members of the particular belligerent’s forces before the beginning of the conflict”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1704(2)(i).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Soldiers’ Code of Conduct and Military Manual (1994) provide: “A belligerent is forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war.” 
Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, p. 4; International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 40, § 6.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states that compelling a prisoner of war and a protected person to serve in the forces of the hostile power is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and is considered a serious war crime. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6(a) and (c).
The manual further states that “compelling a citizen to take part in war operations directed against his own state” is an illegitimate tactic. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 14(a).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “The occupying power … may not compel the inhabitants of the occupied territory to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 62.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “The occupying power … may not compel the inhabitants of the occupied territory to serve in its armed or auxiliary forces.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 63(a), p. 265.
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s Military Regulation 187 (1991) provides that “forcing war prisoners to serve the enemy army” is an unjustifiable crime. 
Republic of Korea, Military Regulation 187, 1 January 1991, § 4.2.
Russian Federation
Under the Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990), it is prohibited as a method of warfare “to compel persons belonging to the enemy party to participate in hostilities against their country”. 
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(q).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states with regard to the behaviour of forces in occupied territory: “It is prohibited to compel the population in the occupied territory to serve in the armed or auxiliary forces of the occupying power.” 
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, § 75.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) prohibits “compelling nationals of the adverse party to take part in war operations against their own country”. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(2).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of the hostile power” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
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, § 40.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “It is prohibited to compel the inhabitants of an occupied territory to enlist in the armed forces of the occupying power.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.7.c.(3).
(emphasis in original)
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
According to [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV], an occupying power may not compel protected persons to serve in its armed forces or auxiliary organizations. It is likewise forbidden to use any pressure to persuade persons to enlist voluntarily in the forces of the occupying power.
The manual adds: “The Convention also states that protected persons may not be compelled to perform any work which would involve them in the obligation of taking part in military operations.” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 6.1.3, p. 124.
The manual further stipulates: “The status of protected persons also entails the advantage that this category of refugees cannot be compelled to serve in the armed forces of the occupying power ([Geneva Convention IV], Art. 51).” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 6.1.4, p. 127.
The manual also provides that “compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of the hostile power” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.2, p. 93.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides:
Protected persons shall not be compelled to do any work which would make it compulsory for them to take part in military operations. It is prohibited to recruit labour force in order to achieve a mobilization of workers placed under a military or half-military regime. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 178.
The manual further specifies that “compelling [prisoners of war and civilians] to serve in the forces of the enemy Power” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 192.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) prohibits the “compelling of nationals of the enemy State to take part in military operations against their own country, even if they used to serve you before the outbreak of hostilities”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 12, § 2-1.
According to the manual, the same prohibition applies to prisoners of war. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
1.2.21. … Citizens of the enemy State shall not be forced to take part in hostilities against their State.
1.3.2. The following methods of warfare shall be prohibited:
- forcing persons who enjoy protection under international humanitarian law … to participate in hostilities.
1.8.5. Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include:
compelling (a person) to serve in the forces of a hostile power. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.21, 1.3.2 and 1.8.5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “Protected persons of enemy nationality … must not be required to do work directly related to the conduct of military operations.” The compelling of prisoners of war and civilians to serve in the forces of the hostile power is strictly prohibited. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 48, 282 and 556.
The manual also states that “compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile power” is a war crime. It adds that “compelling a person to serve in the forces of the hostile power” is a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 625(b) and (c).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981), it is prohibited “to compel enemy nationals to take part in operations against their own country, even if they were in your service before the outbreak of hostilities”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 14, § 5; see also Annex A, p. 46, § 9.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “It is … a grave breach of [the 1949] Geneva Convention III to compel a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile power.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.15.1; see also § 16.24 (enforcement of the law of armed conflict).
In its chapter on occupied territory, the manual provides:
The occupying power can create punishable offences in the interests of its security or that of the population in the occupied territory. It cannot compel the population of occupied territory to acknowledge its sovereignty. That means that civilians cannot be required to:
a. take part in operations against their own country;
b. assist the war effort of the occupying power against their own country;
c. serve in the armed or auxiliary forces of the occupying power;
d. give information to the occupying power about their own armed forces or other defence information. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 11.63 11 .
The manual further states:
The Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognized as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:
i. to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.27.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides that compelling a prisoner of war or a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
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, §§ 418 and 502.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) recalls Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which “forbids compelling nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country”, and Article 45 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, which “forbids compelling the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power”. The Pamphlet also refers to Article 51 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV and states: “Compulsory military service by protected persons in the armed forces of the occupant is prohibited.” It adds: “Wilfully compelling civilians or PWs [prisoners of war] to perform prohibited labour” is an act involving individual criminal responsibility.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 14-6(a) and (b) and 15-3(c)(9).
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980): “A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 32.
Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “compelling a protected person or a prisoner of war to serve in the opponent army”, during an armed conflict, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.2(2).
Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) provides that “compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 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 any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions … 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 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
268.30 War crimecompelling service in hostile forces
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator coerces one or more persons, by act or threat:
(i) to take part in military operations against that person’s or those persons’ own country or forces; or
(ii) otherwise to serve in the forces of an adverse power; and
(b) the person or persons are protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions or under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the person or persons are so protected; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b).  
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.30, p. 323.
The Criminal Code Act also states with respect to other serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.53 War crimecompelling participation in military operations
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator coerces one or more persons by act or threat to take part in military operations against that person’s or those persons’ own country or forces; and
(b) the person or persons are nationals of an adverse party; and
(c) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
(2) It is not a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) that the person or persons were in the service of the perpetrator at a time before the beginning of the international armed conflict. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.53, pp. 335–336.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “compelling service in hostile forces” and “compelling participation in military operations”, in international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.30 and 268.53.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “compelling prisoners of war or other persons protected by international humanitarian law to serve in the forces of a hostile power, as well as compelling citizens of an enemy State to take part in hostilities against their State” are violations of the laws and customs of war. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 115.1.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s Penal Code (1860), as amended to 2004, states:
(2) Whoever compels a prisoner of war or a protected person to serve in the armed forces of Bangladesh shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year.
Explanation. In this section the expressions “prisoner of war” and “protected person” shall have the same meaning as have been assigned to them respectively by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, and Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. 
Bangladesh, Penal Code, 1860, as amended to 2004, Article 374(2).
[emphasis in original]
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).
Barbados
The Geneva Conventions Act (1980) of Barbados provides: “A person who commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 … may be tried and punished by any court in Barbados that has jurisdiction in respect of similar offences in Barbados as if the grave breach had been committed in Barbados.” 
Barbados, Geneva Conventions Act, 1980, Section 3(2).
Belarus
Under Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999), “compelling persons that have laid down their arms or are defenceless, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, sanitary and religious personnel, prisoners of war, the civilian population in an occupied territory or in the conflict zone, or other persons enjoying international protection to serve in the forces of a foreign power” is a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 135(1).
Belgium
Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
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 … :
6. compelling a prisoner of war, a civilian protected by the [1949 Geneva] Convention [IV] on the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict, or a person protected by [1977] Additional Protocols I and II to the … 1949 Geneva Conventions to serve in the armed forces or armed groups of a hostile power or of the adverse party. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(6).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides that compelling a prisoner of war, a civilian person or persons protected by the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II to serve in the forces of a hostile power or adverse party constitutes a crime under international law. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3)(4).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
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 … :
4. compelling a prisoner of war, a civilian protected by the [1949 Geneva] Convention [IV] on the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict, or a person protected by [1977] Additional Protocols I and II to the … 1949 Geneva Conventions to serve in the armed forces or armed groups of a hostile power or of the adverse party. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(4).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998) provides that compelling civilians and prisoners of war to serve in the armed forces of the enemy power is a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Articles 154(1) and 156.
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Articles 433(1) and 435.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering the “forcible service [of civilians] in the armed forces of an enemy’s army”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(e).
The Criminal Code also contains the following war crimes provision:
Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law, orders or perpetrates in regard to prisoners of war any of the following acts:
c) Compulsive enlistment into the armed forces of an enemy power …
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 175(c).
Botswana
Botswana’s Geneva Conventions Act (1970) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Botswana, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] conventions”. 
Botswana, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 3(1).
Bulgaria
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended, provides that compelling a captive or a civilian “to serve in the armed forces of an enemy state” is a war crime. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code as amended, 1968, Articles 411(b) and 412(d).
Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:
A. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 8 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts aimed at persons or objects protected by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions
e) compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power;
B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
o) compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(A)(e) and (B)(o).
Burundi
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:
1. Any of the following grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions … :
5°. Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
2. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
15°. Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(1)(5°) and (2)(15°).
Cambodia
Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001) provides:
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all suspects who committed or ordered the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention[s] of 12 August 1949 … which were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, Article 6.
Cambodia
Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended in 2004, provides:
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all Suspects who committed or ordered the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, such as the following acts against persons or property protected under provisions of these Conventions, and which were committed during the period 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979:
- compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile power. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, as amended in 2004, Article 6.
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 1949 Geneva Conventions] … 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 war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
Chile
Under Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925), compelling a prisoner of war to fight against his or her own army is an “offence against international law”. 
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Article 261(1).
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “forcing non-combatants to engage in military activities with the enemy” and “conscription by force of inhabitants in the occupied territory” constitute war crimes. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(20) and (22).
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on anyone who, during an armed conflict, compels or orders the compelling of a protected person to serve in the armed forces of the enemy. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 150.
Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands 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 any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 1995, provides that in time of war or occupation, organizing, ordering or compelling the civilian population to serve in the enemy armed forces, intelligence services or administration constitutes a “crime against the civilian population”. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1995, Article 138(4).
The same provision applies with regard to prisoners of war. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1995, 1981, Article 139(2).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides that compelling civilians and prisoners of war to serve in the armed forces or in the administration of the enemy power is a war crime. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Articles 158 and 160.
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that it is a war crime to force civilians and prisoners of war “to serve in hostile armed forces”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended to 2006, Articles 158(1) and 160.
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Geneva Conventions Act (1966) punishes “any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic, any grave breach or takes part, or assists or incites another person in the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions”. 
Cyprus, Geneva Conventions Act, 1966, Section 4(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:
3. Compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian person protected by the Conventions or Additional Protocols relative to the protection of civilian persons during war to serve in the armed forces of the hostile power or of the adverse party;
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).
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Code of Military Justice (1953) punishes any member of the armed forces who compels a prisoner of war to fight against his or her own country. 
Dominican Republic, Code of Military Justice, 1953, Article 201(1).
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Code of Military Justice (1934) provides that coercing prisoners of war or other persons in the power of the adverse party to serve in the armed forces of the enemy is a war crime. 
El Salvador, Code of Military Justice, 1934, Article 69(1).
Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), compelling civilians, prisoners of war and interned civilians to serve in the armed forces of the enemy or to take part in military operations is a war crime. 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, §§ 97 and 98.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) provides that it is a war crime to forcibly enlist the civilian population, prisoners of war and interned persons in the enemy’s armed forces, intelligence services or administration. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Articles 282(d) and 284(b).
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) provides:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:
(d) forcible enlistment in the enemy’s defence forces, intelligence services or administration …
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death.
Article 272.- War Crimes against Prisoners and Interned Persons.
Whoever, in the circumstances defined above:
(b) compels [prisoners of war or interned persons] to enlist in the enemy’s defence forces or intelligence or administrative services, is punishable in accordance with Article 270. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Articles 270 and 272.
The Criminal Code of 2004 repealed Ethiopia’s Penal Code of 1957.
Finland
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “forces a prisoner of war or another protected person to serve in the military forces of the enemy or participate in military action against their own country” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(6).
(emphasis in original)
France
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states that the following acts committed by someone acting on behalf of a belligerent power constitute war crimes in an international armed conflict:
1. Compelling a person protected by the international law of armed conflict to serve in its armed forces;
2. Compelling nationals of the hostile power to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the service of the belligerent power before the commencement of the war. 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-20.
Georgia
Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that it is a crime, in international or internal armed conflicts, to compel a prisoner of war or any other protected person to serve in the armed forces of the enemy. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(2)(d).
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides for the punishment of anyone who, in connection with an international armed conflict “compels a protected person … by force or threat of appreciable harm to serve in the forces of a hostile power, [or] compels a national of the adverse party by force or threat of appreciable harm to take part in the operations of war directed against his or her own country”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 8(3)(3)–(4).
India
India’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) provides: “If any person within or without India commits or attempts to commit, or abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions he shall be punished.” 
India, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 3(1).
Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) provides that “[c]ompelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power” constitutes as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(1)(E).
Under the Law, “[c]ompelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in military operations directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war” is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts  
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(P).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).
In addition, any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 51 of the Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides: “It is prohibited to compel your enemies to participate in actions of war against their own country”. 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 37.
The Law instructs soldiers: “You cannot implicate prisoners of war in work which would involve their participation in military operations.” 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 106(3).
The Law also states: “Enemies cannot, in any case, even if they used to serve the State before the outbreak of hostilities, be compelled to enlist in the armed forces of the State, or to render services directly linked to the war.” 
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 281.
Italy
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) provides for the punishment of any member of the military who compels enemy nationals to take part in war actions against their own country. 
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 182.
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: “Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power”. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(5).
Kenya
Kenya’s Geneva Conventions Act (1968) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or outside Kenya commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Kenya, Geneva Conventions Act, 1968, Section 3(1).
Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the compulsory use of civilians and prisoners of war in the armed forces of the enemy is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 338.
Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Repression of War Crimes (1947) provides that “any enlistment by the enemy (or its agents) [of foreign nationals] in either the regular army, police units or military or paramilitary organizations” is a war crime. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Repression of War Crimes, 1947, Article 2(1).
Luxembourg
Under Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985), “compelling a person protected by [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] and [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] to serve in the armed forces of the enemy power” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Article 1(4).
Malawi
Malawi’s Geneva Conventions Act (1967) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or without Malawi commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”.  
Malawi, Geneva Conventions Act, 1967, Section 4(1).
Malaysia
Malaysia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962) punishes “any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside the Federation, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any of the … [1949 Geneva] conventions”. 
Malaysia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, Section 3(1).
Mali
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) provides that compelling a prisoner of war or a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a foreign power is a war crime. It adds that “compelling by a belligerent the nationals of the adverse party to take part in hostilities against their country, even if they were in the service of the belligerent before the commencement of hostilities,” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(e) and (i)(15).
Mauritius
The Geneva Conventions Act (1970) of Mauritius punishes “any person who in Mauritius or elsewhere commits, or is an accomplice in the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Mauritius, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 3(1).
Mexico
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, provides for the punishment of persons found guilty of forcing detainees to participate in military campaigns against their own country. 
Mexico, Code of Military Justice, 1933, as amended in 1996, Article 324(V).
Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, it is a crime to commit in an international armed conflict grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including “compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power”, as well as “compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war”. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(1)(e) and 5(5)(f).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides that “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 any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions … 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), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(a)(vi) and(b)(xv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes the compelling of prisoners of war to fight against their own armed forces. It also punishes the compelling of enemy civilians to serve in Nicaragua’s armed forces. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Articles 55(1) and 58.
Niger
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, it is a war crime to “compel to serve in the armed forces of the enemy power or of the adverse party” persons protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions or their 1977 Additional Protocols. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(4).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) punishes any person who “whether in or outside the Federation, … whatever his nationality, commits, or aids, abets or procures any other person to commit any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Nigeria, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 3(1).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(a).
Norway
Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states in a section related to “war crimes against persons”: “In the case of an international armed conflict, any person is also liable to punishment who … compels a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103(c) bis.
The Penal Code further states: “A protected person is a person who does not take, or who no longer takes, active part in hostilities, or who is otherwise protected under international law.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103.
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea’s Geneva Conventions Act (1976) punishes any “person who, in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions”. 
Papua New Guinea, Geneva Conventions Act, 1976, Section 7(2).
Paraguay
Paraguay’s Penal Code (1997) states that coercing prisoners of war or other persons in the power of the adverse party to serve in the armed forces of the enemy is a war crime. 
Paraguay, Penal Code, 1997, Article 320(6).
Peru
Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980) provides that compelling prisoners of war to fight against their own forces is a violation of the law of nations. 
Peru, Code of Military Justice, 1980, Article 95(1).
Peru
Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
Any member of the military or police shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than five and no more than 15 years if he or she in the context of an international armed conflict:
3. Compels a protected person by means of violence or serious threat to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power, or
4. Compels a member of the hostile party by means of violence or serious threat to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 93(3)–(4).
This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Peru
Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter entitled “Crimes against persons protected by international humanitarian law”, states:
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less five years and not more than ten years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:
3. Compels a protected person by using violence or by threatening serious harm to serve in the armed forces of an enemy power, or
4. Obliges a member of the adverse party by using violence or by threatening serious harm to take part in belligerent operations against their own country. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 90(3)–(4).
Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of any person who, in violation of international law, compels persons hors de combat, protected persons and persons enjoying international protection to “serve in hostile armed forces”. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 124.
Portugal
Portugal’s Penal Code (1996) provides that in times of war, armed conflict or occupation, compelling the civilian population, the wounded, the sick and prisoners of war to serve in the enemy armed forces is a war crime. 
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Article 241(e).
Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who in an international armed conflict commits the war crimes of “[c]ompelling a person, who is to be protected under international humanitarian law, to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” and “[c]ompelling a national of the adverse party to take part in the operations of war directed against his or her own country”. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Articles 10(5)(3) and 10(5)(4).
Republic of Moldova
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) provides a punishment for anyone who compels protected persons “to serve in the armed forces of the enemy”. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 137(2)(a).
Romania
Romania’s Penal Code (1968) punishes the compelling of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, members of civil medical services, the Red Cross or similar organizations, prisoners of war, or of all persons in the hands of the adverse party to serve in the armed forces of the foreign power. 
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Article 358(a).
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:
5° compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the armed forces of a hostile Power, in its intelligence services or administration services;
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:
3° imprisonment for five (5) to ten (10) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 4°, 5°, 13°, 14° or 15° of Article 8 of this law.
Article: 10
“War crime” shall also mean any of the following acts committed in armed conflicts:
8° forcing civilians, including children under eighteen (18) years, to take part in hostilities or to perform works related to military purposes;
Article: 11
Anyone who commits one of the war crimes provided for in Article 10 of this law shall be punished by the following penalties:
2° imprisonment for ten (10) to twenty (20) years, where he has committed a crime provided for in point 3°, 8°, 11° or 12° of Article 10 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–11.
Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states:
[a)] Any of the following acts constitutes a war crime if it concerns members of the armed forces, the wounded, sick or shipwrecked, prisoners of war or civilians or objects protected by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949:
4. compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the armed forces [of a hostile power];
b) other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts [also constitute war crimes]:
13. … compelling [the nationals of the hostile party] to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if [they] were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of hostilities. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Articles 431-3(a)(4) and (b)(13).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or compelling “prisoners of war to service in the forces of a hostile power” constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 374(1).
The Criminal Code also states: “Whoever … hides or holds another person with intent to exploit such person … [through] service in armed conflicts, shall be punished by imprisonment of [from] two to twelve years.” 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 388.
Seychelles
The Geneva Conventions Act (1985) of the Seychelles punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who whether in or outside Seychelles, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Seychelles, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, Section 3(1).
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 –
(c) article 130 of the Third Geneva Convention [on, inter alia, the grave breach of compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power];
(d) article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [on, inter alia, the grave breach of compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power]. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 2(1)(c)–(d).
Singapore
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act (1973) punishes “any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside Singapore, commits, aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Singapore, Geneva Conventions Act, 1973, Section 3(1).
Slovenia
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides that compelling civilian persons and prisoners of war to serve in the armed forces or administration of the enemy is a war crime. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Articles 374(1) and 376.
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
366. Compelling enemy subjects to take part in or promote military operations. — [1.] A soldier who, in the territory of the enemy State occupied by the armed forces of the Somali State, or in any other place, compels an enemy subject to take part in acts of warfare against his own country, or in any way to promote their implementation, shall be punished by military confinement for not less than three years.
2. The provision set out in the previous paragraph shall not be applied if the act in question is committed against enemy subjects who at the same time possess Somali nationality or who are otherwise subject to the obligations of military service in accordance with the law on citizenship.
396. Compelling prisoners of war … to perform forbidden tasks. — 1. A penalty of military confinement for two to seven years shall be imposed on anyone who uses violence or intimidation against one or more prisoners of war to compel them to:
(b) perform tasks that … are otherwise specifically forbidden by law or by international agreements
2. If the violence consists of homicide, including even attempted murder or manslaughter, or of a severe or serious personal injury, the corresponding penalties prescribed in the criminal code shall be applied. The penalty of short-term imprisonment may, however, be increased. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Articles 366 and 396.
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power” and “compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war”. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, §§ (a)(v) and (b)(xv).
Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes the compelling of prisoners of war and civilians to fight against their own forces. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 77(5)–(6).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides for the punishment of anyone found guilty of “compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian person to serve, in whatever form, in the Armed Forces of the Adverse Party”. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 611(3).
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) includes the following grave breach as an indictable offence: “compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power”. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule IV: Article 147; see also Schedule III: Article 130.
Sudan
Sudan’s Armed Forces Act (2007) provides:
Subject to the provisions of the Criminal Act of 1991, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whoever:
(1) compels subjects of the enemy, present in the Sudan territory, to fight against their countries, or other countries, even though they used to work, before the flaring of the war, in the Sudan service. 
Sudan, Armed Forces Act, 2007, Article 158; see also Article 152.
Sweden
Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that compelling prisoners of war or civilian persons to serve in the armed forces of the enemy is a crime against international law. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Article 22(6).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in a chapter entitled “War crimes”:
Art. 111
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than five years for any person who commits, in the context of an international armed conflict, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely one of the following acts against persons or objects protected under one of these Conventions:
e. compelling a person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power;
2 Acts covered by paragraph 1 committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict are equivalent to grave breaches of international humanitarian law if they are directed against a person or object protected by that law. 
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 111(1)(b) and (2).
[footnote in original omitted]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states under the title “War crimes”:
Art. 264c
1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than five years for any person who commits, in the context of an international armed conflict, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely one of the following acts against persons or objects protected under one of these Conventions:
e. compelling a person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power;
2 Acts covered by paragraph 1 committed in the context of a non-international armed conflict are equivalent to grave breaches of international humanitarian law if they are directed against a person or object protected by that law. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Article 264c (1)(e) and (2).
[footnote in original omitted]
Tajikistan
Under Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998), “compelling a prisoner of war or any other protected person to serve in the armed forces of the hostile power” is a punishable offence. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(2)(d).
Thailand
Thailand’s Prisoners of War Act (1955) provides for the punishment of “whoever coerces a prisoner of war into active service with his enemy’s forces”. 
Thailand, Prisoners of War Act, 1955, Section 15.
Uganda
Uganda’s Geneva Conventions Act (1964) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or without Uganda commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any grave breach of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Uganda, Geneva Conventions Act, 1964, Section 1(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 any of the [1949 Geneva] conventions”. 
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 war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(a)(vi) and (b)(xv) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
United States of America
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and violations of Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
5. Compelling a prisoner of war or a detained enemy combatant or other protected person to serve in the forces of an enemy Power or of the adversary.
23. Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2, 26.3.5 and 26.3.23.
Vanuatu
Vanuatu’s Geneva Conventions Act (1982) provides that “any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions that would, if committed in Vanuatu, be an offence under any provision of the Penal Code Act Cap. 135 or any other law shall be an offence under such provision of the Penal Code or any other law if committed outside Vanuatu”. 
Vanuatu, Geneva Conventions Act, 1982, Section 4(1).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Military Penal Code (1943), as amended, punishes the compelling of prisoners of war to fight against their own armed forces. 
Uruguay, Military Penal Code, 1943, as amended, Article 58(8).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, provides for the punishment of anyone who compels a prisoner of war to fight against his or her own forces. 
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998, as amended, Article 474(15).
Yemen
Under Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998), compelling prisoners of war or civilians to serve in the armed forces of the enemy constitutes a war crime. 
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 21(3).
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945) considers that, during war or enemy occupation, “any person who ordered, assisted or otherwise was the direct executor of … compulsory mobilization” committed a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3).
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, provides that compelling civilians and prisoners of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power or administration is a war crime. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Articles 142(1) and 144.
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 [any of the 1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
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.
France
In its judgement in the Wagner case in 1946, the Permanent Military Tribunal at Strasbourg in France ruled that the introduction of compulsory military service for Alsatian civilians was a war crime. 
France, Permanent Military Tribunal at Strasbourg, Wagner case, Judgment, 3 May 1946.
Israel
In its judgement in the Adalah (Early Warning Procedure) case in 2005, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
22. Is the army permitted to make a local resident relay an “early warning” to a wanted person in a place besieged by the army, against his will? All agree that such a thing is prohibited (compare regulation 23(4) of The Hague Regulations; article 51 of The Fourth Geneva Convention; Pictet, at p. 292; Fleck, at p. 252). Indeed, the “Early Warning” procedure explicitly states that the assistance of a local Palestinian resident can be solicited in order to relay an early warning only when that resident has consented to provide such assistance. It is also agreed by all that early warning is not to be relayed by a local resident, if doing so will endanger him.
23. However, what is the law regarding the solicitation of a local resident’s assistance, for the purpose of relaying an “early warning” according to the procedure for doing so, when that resident gives his consent, and damage will not be done to him by relaying the warning? Let it be said immediately: no explicit provision applying to that issue, which would contain a solution to our problem, is to be found (see R. Otto “Neighbors as Human Shields? The Israel Defense Forces ‘Early Warning Procedure’ and International Humanitarian Law” 86 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 771, 776 (2004)). The solution to our question requires a balancing between conflicting considerations. On the one hand, is the value of human life. Use of the “Early Warning” procedure is intended to prevent the need to arrest a wanted person through use of force. In this regard, the procedure is intended to prevent damage to the local residents who are in the same place as the wanted person. Indeed, safeguarding of the lives of the civilian population is a central value in the humanitarian law applicable to belligerent occupation (see article 27 of The Fourth Geneva Convention; HCJ 4764/04 Physicians for Human Rights v. The Commander of IDF Forces in Gaza, 58(5) PD 385, 39X; Fleck, at p. 212). The legality of the “Early Warning” procedure might draw its validity from the general duty of the occupying army to ensure the dignity and security of the civilian population. It also sits well with the occupying army’s power to protect the lives and security of its soldiers. On the other hand stands the occupying army’s duty to safeguard the life and dignity of the local civilian sent to relay the warning. That is certainly the case when he does not consent to take upon himself the task he has been given, and when its performance is likely to cause him damage. But that is also the case when he gives his consent, and when performance of the role will cause him no damage. That is so not only since he is not permitted to waive his rights pursuant to the humanitarian law (see article 8 of The Fourth Geneva Convention; Pictet, at pp. 72, 74), but also since, de facto, it is difficult to judge when his consent is given freely, and when it is the result of overt or subtle pressure.
24. In balancing between these conflicting considerations, which shall prevail? In my opinion, the considerations in favor of forbidding the army from using a local resident prevail. At the foundation of my view lie a number of principled reasons. First, a basic principle, which passes as a common thread running through all of the law of belligerent occupation, is the prohibition of use of protected residents as a part of the war effort of the occupying army. The civilian population is not to be used for the military needs of the occupying army (see Fleck, at p. 218). They are not to be “volunteered” for cooperation with the army (see regulation 23(b) of The Hague Regulations and article 51 of The Fourth Geneva Convention; see also Pictet, at p. 292). From this general principle is derived the specific prohibition of use of local residents as a “human shield”. Also derived from this principle is the prohibition of use of coercion (physical or moral) of protected persons in order to obtain intelligence (article 31 of The Fourth Geneva Convention; Pictet, at p. 219). It seems to me that prohibiting use of local residents for relaying warnings from the army to those whom the army wishes to arrest should also be derived from this general principle. Second, an additional principle of the humanitarian law is that all is to be done to separate between the civilian population and military activity (see Fleck, at p. 169). The central application of this rule is the duty to distance innocent local residents from the zone of hostilities (see rule 24 of International Humanitarian Law). This rule calls for an approach, according to which a local resident is not to be brought, even with his consent, into a zone in which combat activity is taking place. Third, in light of the inequality between the occupying force and the local resident, it is not to be expected that the local resident will reject the request that he relay a warning to the person whom the army wishes to arrest. A procedure is not to be based upon consent, when in many cases the consent will not be real (see Fleck, at p. 252). The situation in which such consent would be requested should be avoided. Last, one cannot know in advance whether the relaying of a warning involves danger to the local resident who relays it. The ability to properly estimate the existence of danger is difficult in combat conditions, and a procedure should not be based on the need to assume a lack of danger, when such an assumption is at times unfounded. On this issue, one must consider not only the physical danger of damage from gunfire originating in the wanted person’s location, or from various booby-traps, but also the wider danger which a local resident who “collaborates” with the occupying army can expect.
25. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that the “Early Warning” procedure is at odds with international law. It comes too close to the normative “nucleus” of the forbidden, and is found in the relatively grey area (the penumbra) of the improper.
The result is that we turn the order nisi into an order absolute, in the following way: we declare that the “Early Warning” procedure contradicts international law. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Adalah (Early Warning Procedure) case, Judgment, 6 October 2005, §§ 22–25.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In its judgement in the Weizsaecker case (The Ministries Trial) in 1949, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that “pressure or coercion to compel [prisoners of war] to enter into the armed forces obviously violated international law” and that the conscription of foreign nationals into the armed forces of a belligerent was a crime against humanity. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Weizsaecker case (The Ministries Trial), Judgment, 14 April 1949.
Australia
In 2009, in a ministerial statement before the House of Representatives on the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
[T]here remains much human suffering among the civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Reports of abuses from within the conflict zone include accounts of … forced recruitment of … adults by the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]. … Australia urges the LTTE … to end its practice of forced recruitment. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministerial statement: Humanitarian Crisis in Sri Lanka, Hansard, 12 May 2009, p. 3502.
Chile
According to the Report on the Practice of Chile, the prohibition of compelling a prisoner of war to fight against his or her own country (reflected in Article 261 of the Chilean Code of Military Justice), predates the 1949 Geneva Conventions and is based on the 1907 Hague Regulations. 
Report on the Practice of Chile, 1997, Chapter 6.5.
Ireland
In 2009, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, in a written response to a question on the situation in Sri Lanka, stated:
I believe that an independent review should consider the allegations of serious breaches of international humanitarian law in the course of the conflict, including … the forced conscription of civilians … into LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] units. 
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers –Foreign Conflicts (3), Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 690 No. 1, 23 September 2009.
Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
[T]he Israel Supreme Court has ruled that use of civilians in any capacity for the purpose of military operations is unlawful, including the use of civilians to call terrorists hiding in buildings. Adalah The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel et. al. v. GOC Central Command, IDF, et. al., HCJ 3799/02 (6 October 2005)]. Following this judgment, this latter practice has also been proscribed by IDF [Israel Defense Forces] orders. The IDF is committed to enforcing this prohibition. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 227.
Israel
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “the standing orders of the Gaza Operation explicitly prohibited the … compulsion of civilians to take part in military operations, in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict and a Supreme Court ruling on the matter”. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 36.
[footnote in original omitted]
The Ministry further stated: “The MAG [Military Advocate General] has directly referred for criminal investigation all allegations that civilians were … compelled to take part in military operations”. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 37.
The Ministry also stated:
The investigation revealed that while conducting a search in a building in Tel Al-Hawa, two soldiers compelled a boy to open several bags and suitcases suspected of being rigged with explosives. Based on these findings, the MAG [Military Advocate General] found substantial evidence that these soldiers had failed to comply with IDF [Israel Defense Forces] orders prohibiting the use of civilians for military operations. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gaza Operation Investigations: Second Update, 19 July 2010, § 41.
Poland
In 2009, in its written replies to the Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning its initial report under the 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Poland stated: “In the light of current Polish penal regulations (art. 124 Pc), the forcing – against international law – of persons covered by international protection to join enemy armed forces, is considered a war crime.” 
Poland, Written replies by the Government of Poland to the Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning the list of issues raised in connection with the initial report of Poland under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 17 September 2009, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/POL/Q/1/Add.1, § 7.
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated: “Compelling hostages to serve in the armed forces of Iraq constitute Grave Breaches (that is, major violations of the law of war) under Article 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV].” 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 618.
The report also listed some specific Iraqi war crimes including “compelling Kuwaiti and third country nationals to serve in the armed forces of Iraq, in violation of Articles 51 and 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV]”. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 634.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1991, in a document entitled “Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia”, the Ministry of Defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia included the following: “The YPA [Yugoslav People’s Army] are arrested, while in their identity booklets they state that the military service is completed, and then are forcefully mobilized into Slovenian forces.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Ministry of Defence, Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia, 10 July 1991, § 3(ii).
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1996, in his report on the situation of human rights in Sudan, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated: “If a prisoner is captured and he refuses to change sides, he is cruelly tortured and executed.” 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Sudan, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/62, 20 February 1996, § 9.
No data.
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflicts
The Final Declaration adopted by the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflicts in 2002 expressed deep concern about “the number and expansion of conflicts in Africa” and alarm at “the spread of violence, in particular in the form of … compelling civilians to join in the armed forces … which seriously violate[s] the rules of International Humanitarian Law”. 
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, Final Declaration, preamble.
No data.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “compelling [protected persons] to serve in the forces of an enemy Party” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 776(j).
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 war crime of “compelling a prisoner of war or another protected person to serve with forces of a hostile Power”, when committed in an international armed conflict, be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, § 1(a)(iv).
No data.