Practice Relating to Rule 87. Humane Treatment

Geneva Convention I
Article 12, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention I provides that wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field “shall be treated humanely”. 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 12, first paragraph.
Geneva Convention II
Article 12, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention II provides that wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea “shall be treated humanely”. 
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 12, first paragraph.
Additional Protocol I
Article 10(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “In all circumstances [all the wounded, sick and shipwrecked] shall be treated humanely.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 10(2). Article 10 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 69.
Additional Protocol II
Article 7(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “In all circumstances [all the wounded, sick and shipwrecked] shall be treated humanely.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 7(2). Article 7 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.51, 3 June 1977, p. 109.
Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles
In the 1991 Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, the Presidents of the six republics of the former Yugoslavia undertook “to apply the following fundamental principles: wounded and ill persons must be helped and protected in all circumstances”. 
Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, signed by the Presidents of the Six Republics of the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, 5 November 1991.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.1 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides: “All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected. In all circumstances, they shall be respected and protected.” 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.1.
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala
In Article IX of the 1994 Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala, the parties recognized the need “to respect the human rights of the wounded”. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca, Mexico City, 29 March 1994, annexed to Letter dated 8 April 1994 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. A/48/928-S/1994/448, 19 April 1994, Annex I, Article IX.
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 9.1 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “Members of the armed forces and other persons in the power of the United Nations force who are wounded or sick shall be … treated humanely.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 9.1.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2005)
Paragraph 6 the 2005 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states:
Detainees who are wounded or sick will be cared for by the Detaining Power at first instance. Sick or wounded detainees will not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey, unless their safety, or the safety of others, imperatively demands it. 
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 18 December 2005 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, § 6.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides that the sick and wounded must be respected and protected in all circumstances. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 3.001.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides for the protection of and respect for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, §§ 2.03 and 7.05.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “Sick, wounded and shipwrecked combatants are to be … treated humanely.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 990.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Sick, wounded and shipwrecked combatants are to be … treated humanely”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.95.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that the “wounded, sick and shipwrecked … shall be treated humanely”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 9.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Military Instructions (1992) provides that the wounded and sick must be treated humanely. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Instructions on the Implementation of the International Law of War in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Official Gazette of ABiH, No. 2/92, 5 December 1992, Item 14, § 1.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that all persons hors de combat must be treated with humanity. 
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(1).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked must be treated humanely, cared for and protected.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 25.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “The sick, wounded and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely … and protected.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 44, § 163; see also p. 41, § 152.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “The sick, wounded and shipwrecked must be treated humanely, cared for and protected.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 164, § 463; see also p. 117, § 392, p. 122, § 403 and p. 159, § 452.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked are to be … treated humanely.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 9-2, § 17.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked are to be protected, respected, treated humanely and cared for by the Detaining Power without any adverse discrimination.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 907.1.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
By Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
a. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, gender, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.1.
In the same chapter, the manual further states: “The wounded and sick among [persons whose liberty has been restricted] are to be treated humanely”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1715.2.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “Wounded, sick or shipwrecked captured combatants … must be treated humanely … and protected.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section III, § 3.1; see also Chapter III, Section II, § 2.2 and Annex, Section II.
Colombia
Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999) provides: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely.” 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 24.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in book III, volume 1 (instruction of first-year trainee officers): “Persons hors de combat, such as … wounded, sick and shipwrecked … must be identified as such and treated humanely.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 14; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 24.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) provides that the rule for “wounded and sick … is to treat [them] in a human way”. 
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 6.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely.” 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11.4.
France
According to France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), wounded, sick and shipwrecked persons must be protected and treated humanely. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 4.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated with humanity. 
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, p. 5.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states that wounded and sick persons shall be treated humanely. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, §§ 608 and 1057.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be respected and protected in all circumstances … They shall be treated humanely and cared for.” 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 5.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
All wounded and sick, regardless of the party to which they belong, shall be respected and protected. In all circumstances, they shall be treated humanely and shall receive, to the fullest possible extent and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 6.
[emphasis in original]
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 10.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be … treated with humanity.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, p. 77, Rule 21.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “According to the provisions of these [1949 Geneva] Conventions, … the sick and the wounded must be respected and protected by the party in whose power they are”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 73.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “The wounded and sick must, in all circumstances, be treated humanely (with human dignity)”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0604.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
The wounded, the sick and shipwreck survivors must be respected and protected, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict. They must in all circumstances be humanely treated, and provided with the requisite medical care without discrimination. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1055.
In its chapter on peace operations, the manual states that “wounded, sick and medical personnel should always be protected and humanely treated”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1223.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that the sick, wounded and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1003(1).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) provides: “All military and civilian wounded … must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(l).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides that the wounded and sick who are in the power of a belligerent must be humanely treated. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 35.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
All the wounded [and] sick … must be treated humanely in all circumstances.
All these categories of people are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical personnel assigned to provide assistance to them must, in all circumstances, treat them humanely, as best they can and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 84.d.
The manual also states with regard to the provision of medical services:
It is also important to note that, in certain cases, deliberate omission and serious negligence are also considered to be violations of international humanitarian law, for example, abandoning people without assisting them, when their condition makes such assistance vital, or deliberately exposing the wounded or sick to infection or contagion.
Lastly, medical personnel must refrain from subjecting protected persons to affronts and insults to their dignity, humiliating or degrading treatment and exposure to public curiosity.
They must also ensure that protected persons are not subjected to any form of intimidation. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 83.a.
The manual contains a similar provision with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including … those placed hors de combat by sickness [or] wounds … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
The wounded [and] sick … and all those placed hors de combat or taking no direct part in the conflict must be treated humanely in all circumstances.
All these categories of people are protected under international humanitarian law. Medical personnel assigned to provide assistance to them must, in all circumstances, treat them humanely, as best as they can and in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 74(a), pp. 271–272.
The manual also states with regard to the provision of medical services:
It is also important to note that, in certain cases, deliberate omission and serious negligence are also considered to be violations of international humanitarian law, for example, abandoning people without assisting them, when their condition makes such assistance vital, or deliberately exposing the wounded or sick to infection or contagion.
Lastly, medical personnel … must also ensure that protected persons are not subjected to any form of intimidation. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 75(c), p. 274.
The manual also states with respect to situations of non-international armed conflict: “Persons not directly participating in hostilities, including … persons placed hors de combat by sickness [or] wounds … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas , Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 72(a), p. 270.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) states: “Members of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] shall treat enemies who are hors de combat (e.g. wounded) humanely and with respect.” 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2a(3).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that belligerents are obliged to ensure the legal protection of war victims, namely the wounded, sick and shipwrecked. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 7.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Under any circumstances international humanitarian law ensures humane treatment during an armed conflict of persons not directly involved in combat operations, including those who have been rendered hors de combat by sickness [or] injury. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 4.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, whether or not they have taken part in the armed conflict, shall be respected and protected. In all circumstances they shall be treated humanely.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 82.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that soldiers in combat shall treat with humanity all persons placed hors de combat. 
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, § 1.
Senegal
Senegal’s IHL Manual (1999) provides that one of the fundamental guarantees common to IHL conventions and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that all the wounded and sick shall be treated with humanity. 
Senegal, Le DIH adapté au contexte des opérations de maintien de l’ordre, République du Sénégal, Ministère des Forces Armées, Haut Commandement de la Gendarmerie et Direction de la Justice Militaire, Cabinet, 1999, pp. 3 and 24.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides that “soldiers should … treat [the wounded and sick] humanely”. 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 37.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “All wounded, sick and shipwrecked … shall be treated humanely.” 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 31.
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “All wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to whatever party they belong, … shall be treated humanely”. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 53.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
1.3 Relationship between LOAC and Human Rights Law and Fundamental Protection Provided under LOAC [law of armed conflict].
Fundamental Protection under the LOAC
The LOAC grants fundamental protection to persons and objects other than combatants and military objectives. This protection applies to all persons in the power of belligerent parties and neutral states. The protection corresponds to basic humanitarian principles applicable to most nations.
The legal basis for this fundamental protection is found in international treaties.
Examples of the wording of these fundamental rules are:
- The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be respected and protected in all circumstances and treated humanely at all times ([1949] Geneva Conventions I and II article 12). 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 1, pp. 21 and 23.
The manual also states:
2.3 Specifically Protected Persons and Objects …
c. Prisoners of War
The wounded, sick and shipwrecked POW [prisoners of war] shall always be treated humanely and be protected and cared for as the tactical situation allows.
d. Wounded, sick, shipwrecked, the dead and missing.
General Treatment of Wounded and Sick (Geneva [C]onvention I Article 12)
- Wounded and sick who no longer take part or can no longer take part in hostilities must be respected and protected in all circumstances.
- They must be humanely treated and cared for by the force into whose hands they fall.
The Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked
Wounded and sick members of the armed forces at sea must be respected and protected as on land. In addition, the shipwrecked must also be respected and protected. (Article 12 Geneva Convention II.) 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 72, 91, 95, 102, 104 and 109; see also p. 105.
The manual further states:
Handling of War Victims:
- The wounded, sick and shipwrecked must be treated humanely, protected and evacuated from the combat area. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 3, p. 192.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that the wounded and sick shall be treated humanely. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, §§ 5.5b, and 7.3.a.(11).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) provides that the wounded and sick shall be treated humanely. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 5.5.b; see also § 7.3.a.(11).
Sweden
Sweden’s Military Manual (1976) provides that the wounded and sick, whether civilian or combatant, shall be humanely treated. 
Sweden, Folkrätten – Internationella regler i krig, Blhang Svensk soldat, 1976, p. 16.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides that the wounded and sick shall be humanely treated. It adds that the “enemy sick and wounded who have laid down their arms or are hors de combat shall be respected”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 69 and 70(1).
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that wounded, sick and shipwrecked combatants “shall be treated humanely”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, pp. 9 and 12.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “The wounded and sick … must be humanely treated.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 339.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “The wounded and sick … must be humanely treated.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 6, p. 22, § 2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
7.3. The wounded and sick are to be protected and respected. They may not be attacked. They must be treated humanely. …
7.3.2. Paragraph 7.3 applies to all wounded and sick, whether United Kingdom, allied or enemy, military or civilian. They are entitled to respect and protection [and] humane treatment. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 7.3 and 7.3.2; see also 13.129 (maritime warfare).
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provisions of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
Under the terms of Common Article 3, the parties to a non-international armed conflict occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions are obliged to apply “as a minimum”, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) restates Article 12 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 215.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) provides: “One of the important principles relating to wounded and sick requires … humane treatment.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 3-4(d).
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 11-4.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 11.6.
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states:
Legal Considerations
a. As a subset of military operations, detainee operations must comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations …
c. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are fully applicable as a matter of international law to all military operations that qualify as international armed conflicts … The principles reflected in these treaties are considered customary international law, binding on all nations during international armed conflict. Although often referred to collectively as the “Geneva Conventions,” the specific treaties are:
(1) [1949] Geneva Convention [I] … This convention … requires humane treatment for wounded and sick personnel who fall into enemy hands …
(2) [1949] Geneva Convention [II] … This convention requires the humane treatment and protection of members of the armed forces and other persons at sea who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. I-2–I-3.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Section 3(2)(e).
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
El Salvador
Under El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), “the civilian who violates the duties of humanity … against the wounded … or persons placed in hospitals or places designed for the wounded … before, during or after the war” is guilty of a crime. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, Article 363.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 279.- Maltreatment of, or Dereliction of Duty towards, Wounded, Sick or Prisoners.
Whoever, in violation of the rules of public international law, maltreats a sick or wounded person … or uses violence against him, or prevents him from exercising or makes it impossible for him to exercise, the rights guaranteed to him by such rules, or issues orders to the same effect,
is punishable with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Articles 4 and 15.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Combatants must respect and treat with humanity all persons protected by the applicable international conventions … [T]he wounded, sick and shipwrecked … are protected persons”. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-8.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 12 of Geneva Convention I and Article 12 of Geneva Convention II, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 10, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 7, are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Islamic Republic of Iran
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Army Penal and Procedure Code (1939) states that “anyone who hurts [an] injured or ill military [person] who cannot defend him/herself or treats him/her cruelly [shall] be sentenced to solitary imprisonment from two to 10 years”. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Army Penal and Procedure Code, 1939, Article 384.
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010) states that “persons placed hors de combat by illness [or] wounds … must in all circumstances be treated humanely”. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.2.1.
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing “acts causing harm to health or serious suffering against the wounded, sick [or] shipwrecked” constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 373; see also Article 381.
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
A commander who causes serious harm … to the sick, wounded or shipwrecked, by not according them the treatment prescribed by law or by international agreements … shall be punished, unless the act constitutes a more serious offence, by military confinement for not less than three years. 
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 382.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust treat … the wounded, sick [and] shipwrecked … that are in their power … humanely.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 107.
Thailand
Thailand’s Military Penal Code (1911) provides for the punishment of “merciless acts against the wounded or sick in the armed forces of any party to the conflict”. 
Thailand, Military Penal Code, 1911, Section 48.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
Though we are unable to express a position regarding the specific events mentioned in the petition … we see fit to emphasize that our combat forces are required to abide by the rules of humanitarian law regarding the care of the wounded, the ill and bodies of the deceased. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgment, 8 April 2002.
Russian Federation
In 1995, in its judgment in the Situation in Chechnya case, the Russian Federation’s Constitutional Court recognized the applicability of the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the conflict in Chechnya. While noting that amendments to domestic legislation to ensure its application had not been adopted, the Court stated: “Nevertheless, provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] regarding the humane treatment of … [the] wounded [and] sick … must be respected by both parties to the armed conflict.” 
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Situation in Chechnya case, Judgment, 31 July 1995, § 5.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane] stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina made an urgent appeal “to make protection and treatment of all wounded and sick persons possible”. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Appeal of the Presidency concerning the International Committee of the Red Cross Operations, Pale, 7 June 1992.
Brazil
In 2009, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations stated:
Today, August 12, 2009, the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law is celebrated. The Conventions, which are the main legal instrument in this area, lay down universal rules on the treatment of the wounded … Brazil ratified the four Conventions in 1957. 
On the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Conventions, the Brazilian Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding International Humanitarian Law and calls on the international community to fully comply with the principles of the Conventions, in favor of the protection of … human dignity in the midst of armed conflicts. 
Brazil, Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law, Note No. 377, 12 August 2009.
 
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
Article 85 entitled “Principle of Humanity”, contained in Title IV on Operations [of the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009)] clearly embodies the spirit of the [1949] Geneva Convention and its [1977] Additional Protocols, as it provides that “[the] … conduct [of members of the armed forces] in any conflict or military operation must conform to the applicable rules of the international treaties on international humanitarian law to which Spain is a party”.
That is further developed in Chapter VI on Ethics in Operations, which goes into specific duties under international humanitarian law … the protection of the wounded, sick, [and] shipwrecked. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private security and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
International humanitarian law is aimed not only at states. It also contains numerous provisions for individuals and even civilians to observe. Perhaps the most well known example is Article 3 common to all four Geneva Conventions, according to which persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed “hors de combat” by sickness, wounds … or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated human[e]ly, without violence to life and person, in particular mutilation, torture and cruel treatment. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Section 5.3.1, p. 46.
[footnote in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Wounded, sick and shipwrecked
Wounded and sick are defined as members of the armed forces or Civilians, who are in need of medical attention and who renounce all acts of hostility. … International humanitarian law calls on all parties to a conflict to treat the wounded and sick in a humane way, i.e. to shelter, rescue and protect them and to provide medical care. No distinction is to be made, except of a medical nature, and Women are given special consideration. The same rules apply to shipwrecked persons, i.e. to all members of the armed forces and civilians in danger at sea or in any other body of water. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 42.
United States of America
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support the principle that all wounded and sick and shipwrecked be respected and protected.” 
United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 423.
United States of America
According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that the wounded and sick in internal armed conflicts should be treated humanely. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.1.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in El Salvador, the UN General Assembly recommended that the UN Special Representative report on the observance of rules pertaining to the humanitarian treatment of and respect for wounded combatants. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 40/139, 13 December 1985, § 3, voting record: 100-2-42-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1986 on the situation of human rights in El Salvador, the UN General Assembly recommended that the UN Special Representative report on the observance of rules pertaining to the humanitarian treatment of and respect for wounded combatants. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 41/157, 4 December 1986, § 4, voting record: 110-0-40-9.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1973)
The 22nd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1973 adopted a resolution on the application of the 1949 Geneva Conventions I, II and III in the Middle East in which it called with urgency for “the total application” of these conventions by the parties to the Middle East conflict, and in particular “of those provisions which relate to the treatment of … civilian victims of the conflict”.  
22nd International Conference of the Red Cross, Teheran, 8–15 November 1973, Res. IV.
No data.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be treated humanely.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 504.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in the hostilities, such as the wounded, sick [and] shipwrecked … must be respected and protected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia “to respect and protect all those not participating or no longer participating in hostilities, such as … wounded [and] sick”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
National Society (Mexico)
In a declaration issued in 1994, in the context of the conflict between the Mexican Government and the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN), the Mexican Red Cross reminded the parties of their obligation to provide treatment and protection to wounded persons in their power. 
Mexican Red Cross, Declaración en torno a los acontecimientos que se han presentado en el estado de Chiapas a partir del 1 de Enero de 1994, 3 January 1994.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1994, the ICRC reminded all parties to the conflict in Afghanistan that the wounded and sick must benefit from a special protection and be respected in all circumstances. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1764, Afghanistan: ICRC calls for respect for the civilian population, 8 February 1994.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “Persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities, such as the wounded [and] the sick … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances, regardless of the party to which they belong.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § I, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 502.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated: “Persons not participating or no longer participating in confrontations, such as the wounded [and] the sick … shall be protected and respected in all circumstances.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § I, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, provides: “In every circumstance, the wounded and sick, whether or not they have taken part in acts of violence, shall be … treated humanely.” 
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 12, IRRC, No. 282, 1991, p. 335.