Соответствующая норма
Colombia
Practice Relating to Rule 7. The Principle of Distinction between Civilian Objects and Military Objectives
Section A. The principle of distinction
Colombia’s Operational Law Manual (2009) states:
One of the main expressions of customary international humanitarian law are the fundamental guarantees. In this respect, the Constitutional Court has listed the following as fundamental guarantees:
(3) the rules relative to the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives;
These guarantees have been embodied in principles that guide behaviour during situations of hostilities and must be observed throughout all military operations:
- Principle of distinction: Generally, the principle of distinction implies that “the parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Civilians must not be targeted.” This principle also implies that a difference must be made between military objectives and civilian objects. 
Colombia, Manual de Derecho Operacional Manual FF.MM. 3-41 Público, Primera Edición 2009, Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares, aprobado por el Comandante General de las Fuerzas Armadas por Disposición Número 056, 7 December 2009, pp. 36–37.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The manual also states:
4. Rules for the conduct of hostilities
a. Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks and [the notion of] protected persons
Article 48 of the [1977] Additional Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions expressly enshrines the principle of distinction by establishing that “in order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives, and accordingly direct their operations only against military objectives”.
From the application of this principle derives a set of rules that on the one hand prohibit attacks against protected persons and objects and on the other hand allow the use of force against persons and objects not protected by IHL, since this principle helps to determine, for example, when a person can be a military objective. 
Colombia, Manual de Derecho Operacional Manual FF.MM. 3-41 Público, Primera Edición 2009, Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares, aprobado por el Comandante General de las Fuerzas Armadas por Disposición Número 056, 7 December 2009, p. 40.
The manual also states:
3. Minimum contents of operational orders
c. Execution
The description of the execution of the operation must include the Commander’s operational concept. Within these sections, the following contents, depending on the operation[,] … should be included:
(i) For operations in a hostilities scenario:
If the operation is carried out in a situation of hostilities, i.e. if the planning can be done within the IHL framework, the section on execution must also include:
- Distinction: Identify, based on intelligence information, the presence of protected objects or persons and verify that the objective is limited to members of an organized armed group or to persons directly participating in hostilities. 
Colombia, Manual de Derecho Operacional Manual FF.MM. 3-41 Público, Primera Edición 2009, Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares, aprobado por el Comandante General de las Fuerzas Armadas por Disposición Número 056, 7 December 2009, pp. 100–102.
In 2006, in the Constitutional Case No. T-165/06, the First Appeals Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
[W]ith regard to the conduct of hostilities, it is important to note that IHL is ruled by fundamental principles, such as the principles of distinction, limitation and proportionality. Indeed, … the principle of distinction imposes on weapon bearers the obligation to distinguish in their military actions … between military objectives and civilian objects. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. T-165/06, Judgment of 7 March 2006, pp. 7–8.
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
[T]he essential principles of international humanitarian law have acquired ius cogens status, based on the fact that the international community as a whole has recognised their peremptory and imperative nature … Among the essential principles of international humanitarian law with ius cogens status applicable in internal armed conflicts … [is] … the principle of distinction. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 76.
The Court further held:
The principle of distinction, one of the cornerstones of international humanitarian law, flows directly from the obligation to protect the civilian population from the effects of war as in times of armed conflict it is only acceptable to weaken the enemy’s military potential. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 76.
(footnote in original omitted)
The Court also held:
The general duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants is an essential duty binding the parties to any non-international armed conflict to differentiate at all times between civilians and combatants in order to protect civilians and their property. Indeed, parties to a conflict are bound to make every effort to distinguish between military objectives and … civilian property. This rule is found in international treaties applicable in internal armed conflicts and is binding on Colombia. It forms part of customary international humanitarian law and has attained ius cogens status. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 78.
[footnote in original omitted]
The Court further held that a “specific sub-rule of the principle of distinction is the obligation binding parties to a conflict to take every feasible step to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 94.
(footnote in original omitted)
In 2010, in the El Iguano case, the Justice and Peace Chamber of Colombia’s High District Court of Bogotá convicted a member of the paramilitary group Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia) of several crimes committed against the civilian population. The Court stated:
234. The rules prohibiting the destruction and appropriation of protected objects derive from the principles of proportionality and distinction enshrined in IHL and according to which the opposing parties cannot choose whatever means of warfare they might wish nor carry out or order indiscriminate attacks. The principle of distinction imposes on the parties to a conflict the obligation to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. In this regard, the Constitutional Court stated:
235. “The principle of distinction, one of the cornerstones of international humanitarian law, flows directly from the obligation to protect the civilian population from the effects of war, as in times of armed conflict it is only acceptable to weaken the enemy’s military potential. This principle obliges the parties to a conflict to make an effort to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects.” 
Colombia, High District Court of Bogotá, El Iguano case, Judgment, 2 December 2010, §§ 234–235.
[footnote in original omitted]