Practice Relating to Rule 124. ICRC Access to Persons Deprived of Their Liberty

Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides that, in the case of armed conflict not of an international character, “an impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict”. 

Article 56 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides:

Article 125, first, second and third paragraphs, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides:

Article 126 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides:

Article 76, sixth paragraph of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:

Article 96 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:

Article 142 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:

Article 143 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:

Article 9 of the 1973 Protocol to the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam designated Red Cross Societies with the task of visiting all places of detention. 

Article IX of the 1995 Agreement on the Military Aspects of the Peace Settlement annexed to the Dayton Accords provided that the ICRC was to enjoy “full and unimpeded access to all places where prisoners are kept and to all prisoners”. 

In the 1969 Agreement between the Government of Greece and the ICRC, it was agreed that ICRC delegates shall have access

Article 5(2) of the 1986 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement provides that it is the role of the ICRC “to undertake the tasks incumbent upon it under the Geneva Conventions” and “to endeavour at all times – as a neutral institution whose humanitarian work is carried out particularly in time of international and other armed conflicts or internal strife – to ensure the protection of and assistance to military and civilian victims of such events and of their direct results”. Article 5(3) provides that the ICRC “may take any humanitarian initiative which comes within its role as a specifically neutral and independent institution and intermediary, and may consider any question requiring examination by such an institution”. 

Principle 29 of the 1988 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment provides:

Paragraph 4 of the 1991 Agreement between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Exchange of Prisoners provides: “The signatories of the agreement agree to proceed to the exchange immediately after the ICRC has recorded and visited the prisoners in conformity with its specific criteria.” 

Section IV of the 1992 Agreement No. 3 between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the ICRC Plan of Action provided:

Article 8 of the 1992 Agreement between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Release and Transfer of Prisoners provides: “The ICRC shall have free access to all prisoners and may make a census of the population of any place of detention with a view to drawing up a specific plan of operation as provided in Article 3.” 

Paragraph 2.4 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides: “The ICRC shall have free access to all captured combatants in order to fulfil its humanitarian mandate according to the third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.” 

In paragraph 5 of the 1996 Ashgabat Protocol on Prisoner Exchange in Tajikistan, the Government of Tajikistan and the United Tajik Opposition agreed

Section 8(g) of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “ICRC’s right to visit prisoners and detained persons shall be respected and guaranteed.” 

Paragraph 4 of the 2005 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan states:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 2007 Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan state:

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:

Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) provides: “Prisoners of war have the right to apply to the representative of the Protecting Power.” It further states: “The Protecting Power and the ICRC shall have access to all premises occupied by prisoners of war.” 

Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that one of the functions of the ICRC is to protect and assist the victims by visiting prisoners of war, security detainees and interned persons. 

Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that prisoners of war “have the right to receive a visit from the ICRC”. 

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “The Rights of Prisoners of War”, states: “National and international humanitarian organizations shall have the right to visit detention centres”. 

Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs):

Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states:

Canada’s Code of Conduct After Capture Manual (2004) states:

Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008) states:

Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) includes amongst the rights to be accorded to prisoners of war: “Humanitarian organizations shall be given access and visiting rights.” 

Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):

Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “In order for the ICRC to be able to carry out its task of guardian of international humanitarian law, the [1949] Geneva Conventions grant the ICRC a right of access to prisoners of war and civilians. They inter alia confer an extensive right of initiative.” 

Ecuador’s Naval Handbook (1989) recognizes the special status of the ICRC and recalls its specific tasks: visiting and interviewing prisoners of war. 

El Salvador’s Soldiers’ Manual provides that the prisoners’ “control book”, which contains the names of all civilian and combatant detainees, shall be notified to the ICRC the day of its visit to the detention centre. 

Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) provides that, during their captivity, prisoners are to be concentrated in internment camps and must be under Red Cross supervision. 

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “The prisoners must be concentrated into prisoner-of-war camps that must meet the conditions specified in the Convention and under the inspection of the Red Cross.” 

Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) provides that to protect the victims of war, the ICRC shall repeat its visits to prisoners of war. 

Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states:

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:

New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states:

Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states with regard to substitutes for Protecting Powers: “The International Committee of the Red Cross can carry out the humanitarian activities assigned to it under international humanitarian law with the consent of the parties to the conflict.” 

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states with regard to substitutes for Protecting Powers: “The International Committee of the Red Cross can carry out the humanitarian activities assigned to it under international humanitarian law with the consent of the parties to the conflict.” 

Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides that the ICRC is allowed to visit prisoners of war. 

South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:

Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that the ICRC shall be allowed to visit POWs (prisoners of war) and internees under the usual conditions. 

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Representatives or delegates of the ICRC and the Protecting Powers must be allowed to visit all places where prisoners of war [and detainees] are being held and interview them, without witnesses, as often as they wish.” 

Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides: “Inspection of prisoner of war camps under the III Geneva Convention has become one of the most important duties of a Protecting Power and of the ICRC.” 

Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides:

Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that one of the functions of the ICRC is to protect and assist the victims by visiting prisoners of war, security detainees and interned persons. 

Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:

The UK Military Manual (1958) states:

The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states:

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on occupied territory:

The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Article 126 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Articles 142 and 143 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 

The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) provides that, subject to essential security needs and other reasonable requirements, the ICRC must be permitted to visit prisoners of war and provide them with certain types of relief. 

The US Naval Handbook (1995) recognizes the special status of the ICRC and recalls its specific tasks: visiting and interviewing prisoners of war.  

The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “The [1949] Geneva Conventions recognize the special status of the ICRC and have assigned specific tasks for it to perform, including visiting and interviewing prisoners of war.” 

The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states:

Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993) states:

Afghanistan’s Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism (2004) states:

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. 

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:

Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Articles 56, 125 and 126 of the Geneva Convention III and Articles 76, 96, 142 and 143 of the Geneva Convention IV, is a punishable offence. 

Japan’s Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations (2004) states:

Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:

Rwanda’s Organic Law concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States (2007) provides:

Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:

South Africa’s State of Emergency Act (1997) states:

South Africa’s Implementation of the Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states: “A protected prisoner of war who is in the custody of the South African National Defence Force must be granted the protection of the [1949] Third [Geneva] Convention or the [1949] Fourth [Geneva] Convention, as the case may be.” 

Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) includes the following provisions from the 1949 Geneva Convention IV:

In 2009, the US President issued Executive Order 13491, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, which stated:

The US National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (2009) provides for the following authorization:

In 2008, in the Amnesty International Canada case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review on the basis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to persons detained by the Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan and their transfer to Afghan authorities. The Federal Court stated:

In its judgment in the Mar’ab case in 2003, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:

In 2010, in its judgment in the Sivalingam case, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka stated: “During his incarceration at the CID [Criminal Investigations Department] Headquarters, the Petitioner was visited by officers of the International Committee of the Red Cross … on two separate occasions.” 

In 1982 and 1987, the Government in Afghanistan allowed the ICRC to conduct visits to prisoners according to its criteria, but occasionally revoked that permission. 

In 2012, the Office of the President of Afghanistan issued a press release entitled “Afghan Human Rights Commission and ICRC can have regular access to Bagram prison inmates”, which stated:

In 2005, in response to a question concerning respect for the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Canada’s Minister of National Defence stated:

In 2006, in response to a question concerning an agreement signed by Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff with the Government of Afghanistan relating to the transfer of prisoners, Canada’s Minister of National Defence stated that “[t]he Red Cross and the Red Crescent are charged with ensuring that prisoners are not abused” and that “[t]here is nothing in the agreement that prevents Canada from determining the fate of prisoners”. 

In 2007, in a report on “Canadian Forces in Afghanistan”, the Standing Committee on National Defence of Canada’s House of Commons noted:

In 2007, in a joint letter from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, addressed to the Government of Afghanistan, regarding third-party access to transferred detainees, it was stated:

In 1989, in a statement before the Human Rights Committee, Chile reported that Red Cross delegates had been able to visit all detainees including those held incommunicado. 

In 2007, in a joint letter from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, addressed to the Government of Afghanistan, regarding third-party access to transferred detainees, it was stated:

In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for Ninth Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading “Protection of prisoners”, stated:

In 1983, in a statement before the Human Rights Committee, El Salvador reported that an agreement had been signed by the Salvadoran Government to enable the ICRC to be notified of the detention of prisoners and to visit and interview them with a doctor and without government witnesses.  In 1987, it emphasized that the ICRC was informed of arrests and could visit detainees in any detention centre whatsoever. 

According to the Report on the Practice of France, access to prisoner camps, wherever they are, must be granted, in particular to the ICRC, to allow it to monitor the conditions of detention and bring humanitarian aid. 

In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany expressed its full support for the ongoing efforts of the ICRC to gain access to detainees. 

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: “The operational order confirmed that … ICRC staff were to be provided with as much freedom of movement and activity as possible, unless imperative military necessity required its limitation.” 

The Lebanese authorities have permitted the ICRC to visit detained persons on several occasions, in accordance with ICRC procedures. 

In 2010, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:

In 2004, in a declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, the Prime Minister of Nepal stated: “HMG [His Majesty’s Government] will continue to provide cooperation to the ICRC, including access to all places of detention.” 

In 2007, in its comments to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Nepal wrote:

In 2007, in a joint letter from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark addressed to the Government of Afghanistan regarding third-party access to transferred detainees, it was stated:

In 2007, in a joint letter from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, addressed to the Government of Afghanistan, regarding third-party access to transferred detainees, it was stated:

In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Oman stated that it was unacceptable to the international community that neither the UN nor the ICRC had been granted access in order to establish the whereabouts of detainees. 

In 2006, during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Peru before the Committee against Torture, a representative of Peru stated that the Peruvian “Government … [allows] systematic visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to places of detention, including those where persons convicted of terrorist offences … [are] held.” 

In May 2000, visits to detainees in Northern Caucasus began after the ICRC received formal authorization from the President of the Russian Federation granting access to “all persons held in connection with security operations” in Chechnya. The ICRC carried out visits to detainees held under the responsibility of the Ministries of Justice and the Interior and the Federal Security Service. 

In 1990, in a speech following the arrest of 2,500–3,000 persons on suspicion of collaboration with the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), the President of Rwanda declared: “The ICRC … had already visited all our prisons, according to its methods, … without any impediment whatsoever, … and in accordance with international agreements.” 

In 2006, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Serbia stated that, in respect of persons deprived of their liberty, “the International Committee of the Red Cross also had insight into [their] concrete situations. It made 215 visits from 1999 to December 2002.” 

In 2009, in its combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, Sri Lanka stated:

Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:

In 2011, in answer to an interpellation in Parliament, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated: “The representatives of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs do not fail to regularly remind the de facto authorities in Gaza of their international obligations, notably as concerns the right of the ICRC to visit the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.” 

In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Uganda stated:

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United Kingdom stated:

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United Kingdom reported:

In 2004, in a reply to a question concerning detainees in Iraq, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated: “Coalition internment facilities are subject to regular inspection by the ICRC who are given full and unrestricted access to the internees.” 

In 2004, in a reply to a question concerning detainees in Iraq, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:

In 2004, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the position of the UK Government on ICRC access to detention facilities in Afghanistan, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning, inter alia, reports received from the International Committee of the Red Cross relating to Iraq, the UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

In 2006, in its response to a report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, the UK Government stated:

In 2006, in reply to a question in the House of Lords concerning “recent discussions … with the Government of Israel regarding their detention of over 7,000 Palestinians, many of them detained for lengthy periods without trial”, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:

In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning detainees in Iraq, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated: “The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has regular and open access to our detention facility and all our internees.” 

In 2007, in a joint letter from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, addressed to the Government of Afghanistan, regarding third-party access to transferred detainees, it was stated:

In 2010, the UK Secretary of State for Defence set out the Ministry of Defence Strategic Detention Policy, stating:

In 2010, in its closing submissions to the public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him by UK armed forces in Iraq in 2003, the UK Ministry of Defence stated regarding common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions: “On its face this protection is restricted to armed conflicts not of an international character. However, it is understood to apply in all forms of armed conflict as part of customary international law to set out the irreducible minimum standard.” 

In 2010, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated that “we continue to call for Hamas to unconditionally release [the Israeli soldier] Gilad Shalit and … we consider it utterly unacceptable that he is denied International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access.” 

In 2010, the UK Army Inspector examined and assessed the implementation of policy, training and conduct of detainee handling by UK armed forces on operations. The Army Inspector’s final report states with regard to UK-run detention facilities in Afghanistan: “Detention facilities are open to third party inspection by the International Committee of the Red Cross.” 

In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support the principle … that the ICRC and the relevant Red Cross or Red Crescent organizations be granted all necessary facilities and access to enable them to carry out their humanitarian functions.” 

In 1991, in a diplomatic note to Iraq concerning operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated that it expected “the Government of Iraq … to provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to prisoners of war as will be done by the United States”. 

In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United States stated:

In August 2003, the US State Department issued a written response to an opinion issued by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), dated 8 May 2003, that had referred to a UNCHR Working Group report on Arbitrary Detention, dated 8 January 2003, which was critical of US policy regarding detainees held at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In disagreeing with the UNCHR reports, and noting that the competence of the Working Group did not extend to the laws and customs of war, the US response stated that “[t]he detainees are not being held incommunicado. Representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (‘ICRC’) have visited detainees individually and privately”. 

On 25 August 2004, the report of an investigation into allegations that members of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade had been involved in detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility (an investigation ordered by the Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Seven (CJTF-7), and later supplemented with the appointment of an additional and more senior investigating officer by the Commander, US Army Materiel Command), was completed and forwarded to the ordering authorities. The report, authored by Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones and Major General George R. Fay, found:

In March 2006, the US Government issued a written response to a report produced by a group of five special rapporteurs to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, dated 16 February 2006, which was critical of US policy regarding detainees held at the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The US Government’s response stated in part:

In September 2006, the US President spoke before an invited audience at the White House to announce the creation of new military commissions to try suspected terrorists, during which he also announced the transfer of 14 detainees from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detention program (thus publicly revealing that such a program existed) into military custody:

In 2007, in a joint letter from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark addressed to the Government of Afghanistan regarding third-party access to transferred detainees, it was stated:

In 2007, in its comments on the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on its second and third periodic reports, the United States stated in response to a recommendation concerning ICRC access to detainees:

In 2009, in further comments on the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on its second and third periodic reports, the United States stated:

In November 2010, in responding to the recommendations made by the Working Group of the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of US human rights records, the US Department of State’s Legal Adviser stated:

In 1982, in a statement before the Human Rights Committee, Uruguay stated that even at the height of the crisis, the government had invited the ICRC to visit the prisons in which all subversives had been incarcerated and they had been able to interview the prisoners in private. 

In a press release issued in 1994, the ICRC noted that the parties to the internal conflict in Yemen had agreed to allow it to visit interned combatants. 

In two resolutions adopted in 1992, the UN Security Council demanded that the relevant international humanitarian organizations, and in particular the ICRC, be granted immediate, unimpeded and continued access to camps, prisons and detention centres within the territory of the former Yugoslavia and appealed to the parties to the conflict to do all in their power to facilitate such access. 

In a resolution adopted in 1994, the UN Security Council called for unhindered access by the ICRC to all persons detained by all parties to the conflict in Tajikistan. 

In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council reminded the Government of Croatia of its responsibility to allow access by representatives of the ICRC to members of the local Serb forces detained by Croatian government forces. 

In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council demanded that the Bosnian Serb party permit representatives of the ICRC to visit and register any persons detained against their will, including any members of the forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

In a resolution adopted in 1995 in the context of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council:

In 1995, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council reiterated its demand that the Bosnian Serb party permit representatives of the ICRC to visit and register any persons detained against their will, including any members of the forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  

In a resolution adopted in 1970 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly called upon all parties involved in armed conflicts to allow the ICRC to have access to prisoners of war and to all places of detention. 

In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN General Assembly:

In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the question of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged the parties to the Afghan conflict to provide the ICRC with access to all prisoners. 

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in Israel, the UN Commission on Human Rights:

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Burundi, the UN Commission on Human Rights welcomed “the continuing cooperation between the Transitional Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross with regard to access and visits to detainees held in central prisons and other places of detention”. 

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Sierra Leone, the UN Commission on Human Rights welcomed:

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in Nepal, the UN Commission on Human Rights called on the Government of Nepal:

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all parties to the conflict to “grant the International Committee of the Red Cross access to those detained in relation to the situation in Darfur”. 

In 1996, in a statement by its Chairman on the situation of human rights in Chechnya, the UN Commission on Human Rights called for “the International Committee of the Red Cross to be permitted to have regular access to all detainees, in conformity with its standard criteria, in order to verify the conditions of their detention and treatment”. 

In 1999, in the context of the conflict in East Timor, the ICRC reported that the multinational force in East Timor, INTERFET,

In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly urged “the governments of member states of the Council of Europe … to intervene with all United Nations member states to grant free access facilities for the Red Cross and Red Crescent to all the places they wish to visit”. 

In a resolution adopted in 1994, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly asked the Government of Rwanda to encourage the ICRC to continue to visit places of detention of POWs, as well as police stations, and to allow international observers to visit other places of detention. 

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation in some parts of the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly demanded that UNHCR, the ICRC and other humanitarian organizations be given access to Bosnian Serb prisoner camps. 

In a resolution on Kosovo adopted in 1996, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly called upon the governments of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia “to allow the ICRC immediate access to detainees”. 

In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the activities of the ICRC, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly invited member States to “give representatives of the ICRC access to persons detained in international or internal armed conflicts”. 

In a recommendation on Kosovo in 1998, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly urged the parties to the conflict to provide access by humanitarian organizations to detained persons. 

In a resolution adopted in 2000 on violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Chechnya, the European Parliament urged that “full access and appropriate conditions be ensured to enable international humanitarian assistance to be delivered and that access to detainees and internally displaced persons be granted”. 

In 1995, in a statement before the OSCE Permanent Council, the EU requested that the ICRC be given unrestricted access to detainees in the context of the conflict in Chechnya.  

In a resolution adopted in 1997, the Council of the League of Arab States decided:

In 1995, the OSCE Permanent Council requested that the ICRC be given unrestricted access to detainees in the context of the conflict in Chechnya. 

In a decision on the OSCE Minsk Process adopted in 1995, the OSCE Ministerial Council urged the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh “to provide the ICRC unimpeded access to all places of detention and all detainees”. 

The 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 adopted a resolution on the treatment of prisoners of war in which it called upon all authorities involved in an armed conflict “to ensure … that the International Committee of the Red Cross is enabled to carry out its traditional humanitarian functions to ameliorate the condition of prisoners of war”. 

The 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969 adopted a resolution on the protection of prisoners of war in which it called upon all parties “to allow the Protecting Power or the International Committee of the Red Cross free access to prisoners of war and to all places of their detention”. 

The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 adopted a resolution on humanitarian activities of the ICRC for the benefit of victims of armed conflicts in which it deplored the fact that “the ICRC is refused access to the captured combatants and detained civilians in the armed conflicts of Western Sahara, Ogaden and later on Afghanistan”. It urged “all parties concerned to enable the International Committee of the Red Cross to protect and assist persons captured, detained, wounded or sick and civilians affected by these conflicts”. 

The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution on respect for international humanitarian law in armed conflicts and action by the ICRC for persons protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions in which it appealed to parties involved in armed conflicts to “grant regular access to the ICRC to all prisoners in armed conflicts covered by international humanitarian law”. 

In a resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted in 1992, the 88th Inter-Parliamentary Conference insisted that “appropriate international humanitarian organizations and, in particular, the International Committee of the Red Cross, be granted immediate, unimpeded and continued access to all camps, prisons and other places of detention”. 

The Conclusions of the London Peace Implementation Conference for Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995 state that fulfilment of the 1995 Dayton Accords will require “full and immediate access by the ICRC to all places where prisoners and detainees are kept, to interview and register all of them prior to their release”. 

In 1995, the ICTY President wrote to the President of the ICRC proposing that the ICRC

In its concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States in 2006, the Human Rights Committee stated:

In the Peruvian Prisons case (Provisional Measures) in 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to indicate provisional measures with respect to the situation in four Peruvian prisons and noted in the description of the “grave and urgent nature” of the case that “the International Committee of the Red Cross is not currently authorized to inspect those prisons”. 

In its Prisoners of War (Ethiopia’s Claim) partial award in 2003, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, in considering the right of the ICRC to be granted access to persons deprived of their liberty, stated:

To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:

In international armed conflict, the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 126 of the Geneva Convention III and Article 143 of the Geneva Convention IV) give express competence to the ICRC as a protection mechanism. According to these provisions, ICRC delegates shall have permission to go to all places where persons protected by Geneva Conventions III and IV may be held, have access to all premises occupied by them, and be able to interview them without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter. In non-international armed conflict, according to common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1986 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Article 5(2)), the ICRC may offer its services to ensure protection and assistance of military and civilian victims of such situations and of their direct results. Protection of the lives, physical and mental integrity and the dignity of persons deprived of their liberty are at the heart of the ICRC’s action. The objective of ICRC visits to persons deprived of their liberty is basically to prevent and put a stop to such occurrences as enforced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as well as to improve detention conditions and restore family links. Preliminary conditions are required for the development of an action aimed at protecting persons deprived of their liberty, namely:

In a press release in 1973, the ICRC responded to press reports which had erroneously stated that it was visiting detainees in Con Son prison in South Vietnam. The ICRC stated that it had ceased visiting the prison as it was only allowed to see “several dozen prisoners of war” and not the “civilian detainees who constituted the immense majority of the inmates” and that it was “precisely because of the restrictions imposed by the South Vietnam government – particularly the prohibition of private talks with detainees – that in March 1972 it discontinued visits to interned civilians”. 

In an appeal launched in 1979 with respect to the conflict in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the ICRC specifically requested that the Patriotic Front “allow the ICRC to visit captured enemy combatants and civilians regularly, and without witness, wherever they are detained”. 

In a press release issued in 1993 on the situation in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICRC called on all parties “to facilitate ICRC access to all the victims”. 

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: “The visiting rights of the ICRC shall be respected and safeguarded.” 

In a press release issued in 1995 concerning Turkey’s military operations in northern Iraq, the ICRC requested “immediate access to Kurdish combatants and civilians detained by the Turkish armed forces”. 

In 1995, an article in the Bangkok Post stated that the ICRC had closed its delegation in Rangoon because it had “failed to get proper access to political prisoners in Burma”. An ICRC statement quoted in the article said that the ICRC had first requested access to political prisoners in Burma in May 1994 but it did not receive a response from the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) until March 1995. The ICRC stated in relation to the response received that “this reply was not satisfactory as it took no account of the customary procedures for visits to places of detention followed by the ICRC in all countries where it conducts such activities”. 

In 1995, the ICTY President wrote to the President of the ICRC proposing that the ICRC

In a communication to the press issued in 2000 in connection with the hostilities in the Near East, the ICRC stated:

No data.