Norma relacionada
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 142. Instruction in International Humanitarian Law within Armed Forces
Section B. Obligation of commanders to instruct the armed forces under their command
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “Commanders have a responsibility to ensure that forces under their command are aware of their responsibilities related to the LOAC and that they behave in a manner consistent with the LOAC.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-1, § 7.
The manual further notes: “In order to prevent and suppress breaches, commanders are responsible for ensuring that members of the armed forces under their command are aware of their obligations under the LOAC.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-7, § 50.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states: “A military unit that obeys the Law of Armed Conflict is one that demonstrates discipline and leadership. This requires training. The responsibility for this training rests with leaders at all levels.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Introduction, § 15.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Preventative and enforcement measures and the role of protecting powers”:
Commanders have a responsibility to ensure that forces under their command are aware of their responsibilities related to the LOAC and that they behave in a manner consistent with the LOAC. Commanders may be held personally and criminally liable in respect of illegal acts committed by those under their command, especially if they knew or should have known that such acts were being committed or were likely to be committed. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1504.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states: “In order to prevent and suppress breaches, commanders are responsible for ensuring that members of the armed forces under their command are aware of their obligations under the LOAC.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1621.2.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
15. A military unit that obeys the Law of Armed Conflict is one that demonstrates discipline and leadership. This requires training. The responsibility for this training rests with leaders at all levels.
The responsibility for training all members of the CF [Canadian Forces] on the Code of Conduct rests with leaders at all levels. Although the office of the Judge Advocate General is the office of primary interest (OPI) as the subject matter expert for the development of the Code of Conduct, the actual training of members of the CF must be organized and conducted through the chain of command. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Introduction, § 15 and Lesson Plan, Introduction.
The 1997 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia stated:
Training is one of the fundamental elements of preparing troops for operations … It is therefore to be expected that commanders at all levels of the chain of command, even the highest, pay particular attention to the training of a contingent, both to supervise and assess the preparations and, through their presence, to demonstrate their personal interest in and commitment to the operation that their troops are about to undertake.
In its findings with respect to this statement, the Commission noted:
Leaders at all levels of the chain of command, with the notable exception of the Brigade Commander during the initial stages of training, failed to provide adequate supervision of the training preparations undertaken by the CAR for Operation Cordon. 
Canada, Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Public Works and Government Services Canada – Publishing, Ottawa, 1997, pp. 592–593; see also p. ES-28.
Regarding the Rules of Engagement (ROE) established with respect to the Somalia mission, the Commission further noted:
The … briefing provided by LCol Watkin on December 10th [1992] included information on the ROE … The officers were then supposed to pass the information on to their subordinates. However, there were no efforts made to ensure that this information was properly understood before being passed down the chain of command to the troops, nor even that it was in fact passed down … While the need to systematically reinforce the ROE training once in theatre was recognized by senior commanders who testified before us, this did not translate into effective ROE training throughout the deployment period. Maj Pommet showed great concern for the understanding of the ROE by his commando and took steps to train his soldiers, but he did so on his own initiative. On several occasions he verified his troops’ knowledge of the ROE by presenting them with scenarios and asking them to respond. Although there may have been some discussion and briefings on the ROE, there was no organized and structured scenario-based training done in theatre. In our view, and notwithstanding the obvious need for it, the leaders failed to ensure that all of the soldiers had a comprehensive understanding of the use of force in Somalia through accessible and systematic training. 
Canada, Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Public Works and Government Services Canada – Publishing, Ottawa, 1997, pp. 616–617.
The Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, in its recommendations with respect to training of the armed forces, stated:
We recommend that: … Canadian Forces doctrine recognize the personal supervision of training by commanders, including the most senior, as an irreducible responsibility and an essential expression of good leadership. Canadian Forces should also recognize that training provides the best opportunity, short of operations, for commanders to assess the attitude of troops and gauge the readiness of a unit and affords a unique occasion for commanders to impress upon their troops, through their presence, the standards expected of them, as well as their own commitment to the mission on which the troops are about to be sent. 
Canada, Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to Somalia, Public Works and Government Services Canada – Publishing, Ottawa, 1997, p. 631, Recommendation No. 21(18).