Practice Relating to Rule 134. Women

Note: For practice concerning the establishment of hospital and safety zones to protect expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven, see Rule 35.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 16, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV states that “expectant mothers, shall be the object of particular protection and respect”. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 16, first para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 38, fifth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides that, as aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict, “pregnant women and mothers of children under seven years shall benefit by any preferential treatment to the same extent as the nationals of the State concerned”. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 38, fifth para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 50, fifth paragraph, Article 89, fifth paragraph, and Article 132, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV contain specific mentions in relation to the provision of food, clothing, medical assistance and evacuation for both pregnant women and nursing mothers. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 50, fifth para., Article 89, fifth para., and Article 132, second para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 18, first paragraph, Article 21, Article 22, first paragraph, Article 23, first paragraph, Article 91, second paragraph, and Article 127, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV contain specific mentions in relation to medical assistance to and transport for pregnant women. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 18, first para., Article 21, Article 22, first para., Article 23, first para., Article 91, second para., and Article 127, third para.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV states: “The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas, of … maternity cases”. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 17.
Additional Protocol I
Article 70(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states:
In distribution of relief consignments, priority shall be given to … expectant mothers, maternity cases and nursing mothers, who under the fourth Geneva Convention or under this Protocol are to be accorded privileged treatment or special protection. 
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 70(1). Article 70 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 245.
Additional Protocol I
Article 76(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states: “Pregnant women and mothers having dependent infants who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict, shall have their cases considered with the utmost priority.” 
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 76(2). Article 76 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 251.
Additional Protocol I
According to Article 8(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the terms “wounded” and “sick” also cover maternity cases and expectant mothers. 
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 8(a). Article 8 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 68.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 4 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 76(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 4.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.3 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 76(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
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, § 2.3.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) contains several specific rules intended to protect pregnant women and nursing mothers from the effects of war. 
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, §§ 1.014, 4.004(1) and 4.006; see also 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, §§ 4.05 and 4.11.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that “maternity cases, pregnant women … are considered as” included in the concept of wounded and sick. 
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, § 2.02.
The manual further states: “Pregnant women and mothers with dependent young children, who are arrested for reasons related to the armed conflict, shall be cared for with absolute priority.” 
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, § 4.13.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides that the terms “wounded” and “sick” “also cover maternity cases … and expectant mothers”. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, Glossary, p. xxiv.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides specific rules “for the protection from the effects of war of … expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven years”. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 735, 940, 946 and 1216; see also Commanders’ Guide (1994), § 926.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
The opposing parties are required to try and conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of … maternity cases … Similar considerations are made for the passage of consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects … and of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for … expectant mothers and maternity cases. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.38.
The manual also provides specific rules with respect to hospital and safety zones “for the protection from the effects of war of … expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven years”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.41.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Brazil
Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states:
In case the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not state who is to be evacuated with priority, the Joint Command shall follow this guidance:
b) the table below sets out who shall be evacuated with priority.
… Categories
A – Pregnant women. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, § 7.4.1(b).
The Operations Manual also states:
1.2.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations are conducted by the Ministry of Defence, upon request by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the evacuation of non-combatants whose lives are in danger, from their host country to a safe place of destination …
3.4.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations … may be triggered by sudden changes in the government of the host country, changes in its political or military orientation with regard to Brazil, or hostile threats to Brazilian citizens by internal or external forces in that country.
Annex A. Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict
3. The Law of Armed Conflict
According to the policy of the Ministry of Defence, the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict regulate the actions taken by the Joint Command in the defence of its personnel, property and equipment. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, §§ 1.2.1 and 3.4.1, and Annex A, § 3.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The terms ‘wounded’ and ‘sick’ also cover maternity cases, newly-born and all other persons with immediate medical needs [such as] … expectant mothers.” 
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. 57.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “Protection of Women”, states: “If they are amongst persons arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to a conflict while they are pregnant or have young children, their case must be examined with absolute priority.” 
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. 29, § 131; see also p. 75, § 321.
The manual also states under the heading “The Wounded, Sick [and] Shipwrecked” that “[m]aternity cases and the newborn benefit from the protection” accorded to the sick and wounded. 
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. 95, § 352.29; see also p. 137, § 412.282.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) contains several specific rules intended to protect maternity cases and expectant mothers. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-10, § 103, p. 6-4, § 35, p. 11-2, § 16, p. 11-3, § 23 and p. 12-4, § 32.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting:
Hospital and safety zones can be established by parties to a conflict to protect the following persons from the effects of armed conflict:
c. expectant mothers; and
d. mothers of children under the age of seven. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 454.1.c–d.
In its chapter on land warfare, the manual states:
If circumstances permit, the parties to a conflict must endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases. The parties should also permit passage to these areas of:
e. essential foodstuffs, clothing, and tonics intended for children under the age of 15, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 614.6.e.
In its chapter on the treatment of civilians in the hands of a party to the conflict or an occupying power, the manual provides: “Special protection and respect must be given to the wounded and sick, the infirm and expectant mothers.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1110.
In its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers, the manual states:
The occupying power is under an obligation to allow free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and … essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1219.
Canada
Canada’s Prisoner of War Handling and Detainees Manual (2004) states with regard to the special dietary requirements of prisoners of war (PW): [P]regnant female PW are … to be provided with appropriate dietary supplements as directed by the Canadian or coalition Medical officer”. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 3F11.2.
With regard to the liability for work duties, the manual states: “pregnant female PW are not to be employed on any work that might, directly or indirectly, endanger their health or that of her unborn child”. 
Canada, Prisoner of War Handling, Detainees, Interrogation and Tactical Questioning in International Operations, B-GJ-005-110/FP-020, National Defence Headquarters, 1 August 2004, § 3G01.1.d.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “If pregnant women or mothers with young children are arrested, detained or interned because of the conflict, their cases must be considered with the utmost priority.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 53.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states:
In these cases, the IHL rules favour especially the civilian population, so that the assistance and protection which the parties to the conflict shall bring are given in priority to the most vulnerable persons or groups of persons, who are: … pregnant women. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 25.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
I.1.2. Women
… If a pregnant woman or a mother of a small child is detained because she is suspected of an offence, her case must be examined with priority. 
Côte d’Ivoire, 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. 22.
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “Women have … the right under IHL to certain forms of protection specific to their sex, namely the following: … measures regarding the specific physical needs of pregnant women and mothers of infants and young children.” 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 23.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states: “A particular attention shall be paid to the protection of … pregnant women and mothers accompanied by children under seven years old.” 
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, pp. 4–5; see also Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 125.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) contains specific rules intended to protect maternity cases and states: “Out of concern for their protection, pregnant women and maternity cases … are included in the same category as the wounded and sick under humanitarian law.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 32 and 64.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) contains specific rules intended to protect “expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven from any attack”. 
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, § 512.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) contains specific rules intended to protect expectant mothers and maternity cases. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, pp. 5–6.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) provides that maternity cases and pregnant women are included in the same category as the wounded and sick. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 4-SO, § B.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on Geneva Convention IV, states: “This Convention includes provisions for the parties to a conflict to make local agreements for the evacuation of … women in labour from besieged or encircled areas”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 209.
Netherlands
The Military Manual of the Netherlands (1993) states: “Pregnant women and mothers having dependent infants shall be respected.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. VIII-3.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “Pregnant women and mothers with small children are entitled to special protection.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0811.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) contains several specific rules intended to protect expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 508(3), 1106(1), 1108, 1110, 1111(1), 1118, 1131(1), 1318(1) and 1405(4).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) states: “Under no circumstances should pregnant women be ill-treated or killed.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(a).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) states:
Duly recognized civilian hospitals with their staff, as well as land, sea or air transport of wounded and sick persons, the infirm or maternity cases are entitled to similar respect and protection as provided in the first and second conventions for their military counterparts. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 18, § 12.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Special attention should be given to certain categories of people, on account of their age or condition, such as … pregnant women.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 84.c.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Special attention should be given to certain categories of people, on account of their age or condition, such as … pregnant women”. 
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(b), p. 274
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
2.4 Specifically Protected Persons and Objects:
a. Civilians
[1949] Geneva Convention IV further stipulates special categories of civilian persons who enjoy special protection under the Convention (articles 4, 14, 16, 17 and 24), to wit:
- Expectant mothers;
- Mothers of children under the age of seven;
Protective Measures in Favour of Women and Children (Additional Protocol I Article 76 and 77)
Article 76 determines that women shall be the object of special respect and shall, in particular, be protected against rape, forced prostitution and any other form of indecent assault.
Conclusion
… Article 4 of Geneva Convention IV provides for further refinements to this definition [of civilians]. …
Special categories of civilian persons who enjoy special protection under the Convention are expectant mothers, mothers of children under the age of seven, aged or infirm persons, wounded and sick civilians and children younger than fifteen. 
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. 112, 113–114, 121 and 123.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Pregnant women and mothers of young children shall receive a particular attention.” 
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, § 1.3.c.(1); see also §§ 4.5.b.(3), 9.4.a and 9.5.a.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that the “law of armed conflict reflects the need to provide special protection to those victims of war who are more vulnerable to danger”. In that context: “Priority is given to the care of pregnant women and women with young children.” 
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, § 1.3.c.(1); see also §§ 4.5.b.(3).(b), 9.4.a and 9.5.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) contains several rules intended to protect specifically maternity cases and pregnant women. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 33, 36 and 37.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) contains several rules intended to protect specifically maternity cases and pregnant women. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 28, 29, 32–35, 46 and 538.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) contains specific rules intended to protect expectant women and mothers with children under seven years of age. 
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 9, p. 34, §§ 2, 3 and 5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Pregnant women and mothers of dependent children who are arrested, detained or interned for reasons related to the armed conflict must have their cases considered with the utmost priority.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 9.8.2.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) contains several rules intended to protect specifically maternity cases and pregnant women. 
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, §§ 44, 253, 256, 257, 260–262, 277(5), 296, 383.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) contains several rules intended to protect specifically maternity cases and pregnant women. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 14-3 and 14-5.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) states: “Pregnant women and women with young children have to be assured of kind treatment and care.” 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 15.
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).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Articles 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 38, 50, 89, 91, 127 and 132 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Articles 70(1) and 76(2), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
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.
Philippines
The Act on Child Protection of the Philippines (1992) states: “Expectant mothers and nursing mothers shall be given additional food in proportion to their physiological needs.” 
Philippines, Act on Child Protection, 1992, Sections 23–24.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law against Kidnapping and Extortion (2009) states:
Article 9. Forcible enlistment
Anyone who, by means of threat or deception, holds, hides, takes or transfers by any means whatsoever, one or more persons for purposes of subjecting them to forcible enlistment, in order to include them in irregular armed groups, shall be punished with imprisonment of 15 to 20 years.
Article 10. Aggravating factors
The penalties for the offences envisaged in the preceding articles shall be increased by one third when:
1. The victim is … a pregnant woman[.] 
Venezuela, Law against Kidnapping and Extortion, 2009, Articles 9–10(1).
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.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states: “Pregnant women and mothers of small children enjoy the same status as the sick and Wounded, being transferred to safety zones and are first in line for assistance.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 42.
Syrian Arab Republic
The Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic asserts that the Syrian Arab Republic considers Article 76 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to be part of customary international law.  
Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, 1997, Chapter 5.3.
Venezuela
In 2011, in its initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, Venezuela stated:
83. The Act against Kidnapping and Extortion, published in Gaceta Oficial No. 39194, of 5 June 2009, defines forcible enlistment as a criminal offence separate from kidnapping. Article 9 of the Act stipulates that anyone who, by means of threat or deception, holds, hides, takes or transfers by any means whatsoever, one or more persons for purposes of subjecting them to forcible enlistment, in order to include them in [irregular armed] groups, shall be punished with imprisonment of 15 to 20 years.
84. … Article 10, paragraph 1 provides that penalties for the offences envisaged in the preceding articles shall be increased by one third when: 1. The victim is … a pregnant woman[.] 
Venezuela, Initial report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, 12 September 2013, UN Doc. CRC/C/OPAC/VEN/1, submitted 5 July 2011, §§ 83–84.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights,
Condemning the denial by Israel of access to hospitals for Palestinian pregnant women, which forces them to give birth at checkpoints under hostile, inhumane and humiliating conditions,
4. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to address the issue of Palestinian pregnant women giving birth at Israeli checkpoints owing to denial of access by Israel to hospitals, with a view to ending this inhumane Israeli practice, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session and the Commission at its sixty-second session. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble and § 4, voting record: 29-10-14.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.
No data.