Norma relacionada
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 130. Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory, with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-4, § 33.
The manual further states that “transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 17.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers: “The occupying power is forbidden to move parts of its own population into the occupied territory, with the intention of changing the nature of the population or annexing or colonizing the area.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1220.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that the “transfer by an occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.3.a.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’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).
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.