Norma relacionada
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 52. Pillage
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “Pillage, the violent acquisition of property for private purposes, is prohibited. Pillage is theft, and therefore is an offence under the Code of Service Discipline.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, Glossary, p. GL-15 and p. 6-5, § 50.
In respect of civilians, the manual states that pillage is expressly prohibited in the territories of the parties to the conflict and in occupied territories. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-4, § 33(c).
In addition, the manual states: “The pillage of a town, … even when taken by assault, is prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-3, § 31.
The manual specifically emphasizes that, in occupied territory:
Pillage is prohibited. Pillage is the seizure or destruction of enemy private or public property or money by representatives of a belligerent, usually soldiers, for private purposes … Soldiers are not allowed to become thieves or bandits on their own account merely because they are involved in an armed conflict. The rule against pillage is directed against all private acts of lawlessness committed against enemy property. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-8, § 67.
The manual lists “looting or gathering trophies” as a war crime “recognized by the LOAC”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, pp. 16-3 and 16-4, § 21(b).
The manual also specifically states that, in the course of non-international armed conflicts, pillage is prohibited “at any time and anywhere”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-3, § 21(f).
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides that “looting is prohibited”. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 8.
The Code of Conduct adds:
(1) A battlefield and destroyed civilian areas offer attractive objects for the curiosity seeker. No matter how tempting such objects may be, the taking of souvenirs is prohibited. Looting is theft; it is a serious offence and it may also have direct operational consequences.
(2) The taking of personal war trophies is also prohibited. Not only is looting illegal, there is also a significant operational risk that such property may be booby-trapped. An isolated act of theft may impede your mission by turning the local population against you.
(3) The Law of Armed Conflict does permit the seizure and use of property belonging to the opposing forces under certain circumstances. However, the taking and use of such property must only be done where properly authorized … Property may never be taken for the personal benefit of individual CF personnel. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 8, §§ 1–3.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare: “Pillage, the violent acquisition of property for private purposes, is prohibited. Pillage is theft, and therefore is an offence under the Code of Service Discipline.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 624; see also Glossary, p. GL-3.
With regard to siege warfare, the manual further states: “The pillage of a town … even when taken by assault, is prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 614.2.
In its chapter on the treatment of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power, and, more specifically, in a section entitled “Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories”, the manual states that pillage is “expressly prohibited”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1121.2.c.
In its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers, the manual provides:
Pillage is prohibited. Pillage is the seizure or destruction of enemy private or public property or money by representatives of a belligerent, usually soldiers, for private purposes. Soldiers may, under certain circumstances seize enemy property but once such property has been seized it belongs to the state which the soldiers are serving. Soldiers are not allowed to become thieves or bandits on their own account merely because they are involved in an armed conflict. The rule against pillage is directed against all private acts of lawlessness committed against enemy property. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1236.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual refers to “looting or gathering trophies” as a war crime “recognized by the LOAC”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.3.b.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
1. Although AP II [Additional Protocol II] contains no provisions relating to enforcement or punishment of breaches, it does contain a statement of fundamental guarantees prohibiting at any time and anywhere:
f. pillage; or
g. threats to commit any of the foregoing. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1713.1.f–g.
Rule 8 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states: “Looting is prohibited.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 8.
The Code of Conduct further states:
1. A battlefield and destroyed civilian areas offer attractive objects for the curiosity seeker. No matter how tempting such objects may be, the taking of souvenirs is prohibited. Looting is theft; it is a serious offence and it may also have direct operational consequences.
Looting and War Trophies
2. The personal property of sick and wounded, detained persons and the dead shall not be taken. The taking of personal war trophies is also prohibited. Not only is looting illegal, there is also a significant operational risk that such property may be booby-trapped. An isolated act of theft may impede your mission by turning the local population against you.
Property of Opposing Forces
3. The Law of Armed Conflict does permit the seizure and use of property belonging to the opposing forces under certain circumstances. However, the taking and use of such property must only be done where properly authorized … Property may never be taken for the personal benefit of individual CF [Canadian Forces] personnel. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 8, §§ 1–3.
Canada’s National Defence Act (1985) punishes
every person who … breaks into any house or other place in search of plunder … steals any money or property that has been left exposed or unprotected in consequence of warlike operations, or … takes otherwise than for the public service any money or property abandoned by the enemy. 
Canada, National Defence Act, 1985, Section 77(e), (h) and (i).
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 2009, in the Munyaneza case, Canada’s Superior Court of Québec found a Rwandan national who had been residing in Canada guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994. The Court held: “As for customary international law, Article 4 of the [1994] ICTR Statute, regarding non-international armed conflicts, provides that it applied on Rwandan territory in 1994 and that the list of war crimes included … pillage.” 
Canada, Superior Court, Criminal Division, Province of Quebec, Munyaneza case, Judgment, 22 May 2009, § 135.
(footnote in original omitted)
The Court also held:
International jurisprudence stipulates the elements that constitute the act of pillage:
(a) the accused appropriated one or more items of property;
(b) the accused intended to plunder property owners for private or personal gain;
(c) without the owners’ approval;
(d) the act is closely linked to hostilities;
(e) the plundered property must have sufficient value for the victim. 
Canada, Superior Court, Criminal Division, Province of Québec, Munyaneza case, Judgement, 22 May 2009, § 146.
[footnote in original omitted]
In 2013, in the Fofana case, Canada’s Federal Court, in rejecting an appeal to remain in Canada on grounds of involvement in war crimes in Côte d’Ivoire, stated:
In this case, the RPD [Refugee Protection Division] stated that it was satisfied that, for two years, the applicant was present at a roadblock with a rebel group (Forces Nouvelles), where he took part in extorting money from travellers. Indeed, the applicant admitted his participation during those two years. The RPD was also satisfied that these extortion practices took place as part of an armed conflict not of an international character. This is what is required to conclude that there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant committed a war crime. 
Canada, Federal Court, Fofana case, Reasons for Order and Order, 19 June 2013, § 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.