Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule124
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:56:29+00:00

Document:
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”.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 56.
Subject to the measures which the Detaining Powers may consider essential to ensure their security or to meet any other reasonable need, the representatives of religious organizations, relief societies, or any other organization assisting prisoners of war, shall receive from the said Powers, for themselves and their duly accredited agents, all necessary facilities for visiting the prisoners, distributing relief supplies and material, from any source, intended for religious, educational or recreative purposes, and for assisting them in organizing their leisure time within the camps. Such societies or organizations may be constituted in the territory of the Detaining Power or in any other country, or they may have an international character.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 125, first, second and third paras.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 126.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 76, sixth para..
All labour detachments shall remain part of and dependent upon a place of internment. The competent authorities of the Detaining Power and the commandant of a place of internment shall be responsible for the observance in a labour detachment of the provisions of the present Convention. The commandant shall keep an up-to-date list of the labour detachments subordinate to him and shall communicate it to the delegates of the Protecting Power, of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of other humanitarian organisations who may visit the places of internment.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 96.
Subject to the measures which the Detaining Powers may consider essential to ensure their security or to meet any other reasonable need, the representatives of religious organizations, relief societies, or any other organizations assisting the protected persons, shall receive from these Powers, for themselves or their duly accredited agents, all facilities for visiting the protected persons, for distributing relief supplies and material from any source, intended for educational, recreational or religious purposes, or for assisting them in organizing their leisure time within the places of internment. Such societies or organizations may be constituted in the territory of the Detaining Power, or in any other country, or they may have an international character.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 142.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 143.
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.
Protocol on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet-Nam concerning the Return of Captured Military Personnel and Foreign Civilians and Captured and Detained Vietnamese Personnel, signed on behalf of the United States of America, the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam, Paris, 27 January 1973, Article 9.
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”.
General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Annex 1A, Military Aspects of the Peace Settlement, signed by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska, Dayton, 22 November 1995, Article IX.
… to all police stations where people are temporarily detained pending preliminary enquiries into political offences, so that they may form a personal opinion on the state of the premises and the conditions of detention.
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”.
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, adopted by the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Article 5(2) and (3).
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 43/173, 9 December 1988, Principle 29.
Agreement between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Exchange of Prisoners and of Persons Deprived of Liberty, Zagreb, 6 November 1991, § 4.
–ICRC delegates will be authorized to interview these persons without witnesses, to register them, to inform their families about their welfare and whereabouts, and to repeat such visits whenever necessary.
Agreement No. 3 between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representative of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community) on the ICRC Plan of Action, Geneva, 6 June 1992, Section IV.
Agreement on the Release and Transfer of Prisoners, concluded between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representative of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Mate Boban (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 1 October 1992, Article 8.
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, § 2.4.
to confirm their earlier commitment to ensure the unimpeded access by delegates of ICRC and members of the Joint Commission to places where the detainees and prisoners of war are being held, both during the present operation [of prisoner exchange] and in future.
Protocol on the Implementation of a Humanitarian Action Involving the Exchange of Prisoners of War and Detainees, concluded between the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan and the United Tajik Opposition, Ashgabat, 21 July 1996, annexed to Report of the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Tajikistan, UN Doc. S/1996/754, 13 September 1996, § 5.
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 8(g).
The International Committee of the Red Cross will have a right to visit detainees at any time while they are in custody, whether held by the Canadian Forces or by Afghanistan. Visits may be delayed by a Detaining Power only as an exceptional and temporary measure for reasons of imperative military necessity.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 18 December 2005 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, § 4.
1. The following supplements the Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan of December 18, 2005, which continues in effect.
2. Representatives of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), and . . . others empowered to represent the Government of Canada will have full and unrestricted access to any persons transferred by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities while such persons are in custody. In addition to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), relevant human rights institutions with the UN system will be allowed access to visit such persons.
Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, signed on 3 May 2007 in Kabul by the Afghan Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, §§ 1 and 2.
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.
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule I, p. 8.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that prisoners of war “have the right to receive a visit from the ICRC”.
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. 105.
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”.
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. 35, § 141; see also p. 55, § 241 and p. 81, § 331.
In accordance with [the 1949 Geneva Convention III], delegates or representatives of Protecting Powers and of the ICRC shall be permitted to visit all places where PWs [prisoners of war] may be, including places of detention and labour, and may interview PWs and PWs’ representatives without witnesses, either personally or through interpreters.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-6, § 51.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-7, § 62(c).
In accordance with [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] delegates or representatives of Protecting Powers and of the ICRC shall be permitted to visit all places where PWs may be, including places of detention and labour, and may interview PWs and PWs’ representatives without witnesses, either personally or through interpreters.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1037.
c. Protected persons who are detained have the right to be visited by delegates of the Protecting Power and of the ICRC.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1233.1.c.
In accordance with Common Article 3 of the [1949 Geneva Conventions], the ICRC may offer its services to the parties to the conflict. Good offices, mediation and PW visits and exchanges are examples of such services.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1502.3.
Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] also provides that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), or some other impartial humanitarian body, is authorized to offer its services to parties to a non-international armed conflict. This is known as the right of initiative, which is recognized under the LOAC.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1708.2.
Representatives and Delegates of Protecting Powers and ICRC Delegates have the right to investigate the treatment and administration of PW [prisoners of war] wherever they may be and are to be allowed to interview PW without witnesses. They are to be given support and cooperation in this work. For Canada, this right can be temporarily delayed for reasons of imperative military necessity by the MND (Minister of National Defence) in Canada and the Joint Task Force (JTF) Commander outside Canada.
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, § 106.4.
Canada, The Code of Conduct After Capture for the Canadian Forces, B-GJ-005-110/FP-010, National Defence Headquarters, 28 October 2004, § 313.
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. 59; see also p. 37.
- allow the ICRC to visit them.
The prisoner of war is an enemy combatant hors de combat due to the fact of his capture. As such, he enjoys a legal status which guarantees him rights.
The aim of this lesson is to familiarize the soldier with the activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] generally and in particular in times of armed conflict.
- they must receive lists of all the persons to visit (or must themselves be able to establish such lists).
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 21, 24, 27 and 33–34; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 18, 32 and 24–35; Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 55–56.
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. 20.
The manual also lists “visits to persons deprived of their liberty” as an example of the ICRC’s “general action to provide protection and assistance to the civilian population”.
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. 32.
Ecuador’s Naval Handbook (1989) recognizes the special status of the ICRC and recalls its specific tasks: visiting and interviewing prisoners of war.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.2.
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.
El Salvador, Manual del Combatiente, undated, p. 6.
The manual states that one of the principal functions of the ICRC is to visit prisoners and to talk with them without witnesses.
El Salvador, Manual del Combatiente, undated, p. 11.
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.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) provides that to protect the victims of war, the ICRC shall repeat its visits to prisoners of war.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. I-T, § 22.
205. Relief societies, the ICRC and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies played such an important role in helping prisoners of war during the two World Wars that the [1949 Geneva] Convention [III] devotes an article to them, aimed at facilitating and encouraging their activity.
206. This provision requires States to grant them and their duly accredited delegates all the necessary facilities to visit prisoners, distribute relief supplies and religious, educational and recreational materials and help them organize leisure activities within the camps. The special status of the ICRC in this regard must be recognized and respected at all times.
207. The Convention provides that representatives of the Protecting Powers must be given permission to visit any place where prisoners of war are being held, particularly places of internment, imprisonment and labour. They must be given access to all premises used by prisoners. ICRC delegates enjoy the same prerogatives. The appointment of such delegates must be submitted for approval to the power detaining the prisoners of war to be visited.
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, §§ 205–207.
- visiting people who have been deprived of their freedom (prisoners of war, political prisoners and civilians who have been imprisoned for other reasons), and to seek to bring improvement in their living conditions.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0243.
[C]onditions in prisoner-of-war and internment camps and the state of health and food supply of the civilian population in occupied territory may come under the supervision of a protecting power. Here the ICRC may act as a protecting power.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1118.
Delegates or representatives of Protecting Powers and of the ICRC shall be permitted to visit all places where prisoners of war may be, including places of detention and labour, and may interview prisoners and prisoners’ representatives without witnesses, either personally or through interpreters.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 937.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 25.d.(2).(a).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 56.e.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 90.a.(4).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 71.b.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 26(d)(2)(a), p. 235.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 57(e), p. 263.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 81(a)(4), pp. 675–676.
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides that the ICRC is allowed to visit prisoners of war.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that the ICRC shall be allowed to visit POWs and internees under the usual conditions.
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, §§ 6.4.j and 6.8.j.
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, §§ 6.4.j and 6.8.j.
Visits to places where prisoners and internees are being held by representatives of the Protecting Powers or the International Committee of the Red Cross may only be prohibited “for reasons of imperative military necessity”, and then only as an exceptional and temporary measure.
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, § 2.4.a.(4).
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.1, p. 92.
The Protecting Powers and the ICRC shall ensure respect for the international rules established in favour of prisoners of war to protect their interests. To this effect, they shall cooperate with the Detaining Power, which shall facilitate their tasks. The prisoners of war shall always have the ability to lodge complaints to the Protecting Power.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 108.
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.
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 8.
The manual, referring to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, further reaffirms the right of the ICRC to visit these persons.
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 11.
- to assist as much as possible the International Committee of the Red Cross in the performance of its humanitarian functions aimed at the protection of and assistance to the victims of armed conflicts.
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.5.1.
If no protection can be arranged, the Detaining Power must request, or shall accept, the offer of the services of a humanitarian organisation, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by the Protecting Power.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 277.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 278.
The manual also states that “refusing prisoners of war access to the Protecting Power” is a war crime.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626.
The Protecting Power has various functions, notably to inspect PW camps and to deal with prisoners’ appeals for help in correcting any violations of the [Third Geneva] Convention by the Detaining Power. If no neutral Protecting Power has been appointed, its functions can be exercised by the ICRC or some other humanitarian organisation, subject to the consent of the parties to the conflict concerned.
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 8, p. 33, § 20.
h. detainees have the right to be visited by representatives of the protecting power and the ICRC.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual restates the provision of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions according to which “an impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict”.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.4.2.
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.
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, §§ 207 and 349–350.
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.
United States, Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, Center for Law and Military Operations and International Law Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, 1993, p. Q-187.
The US Naval Handbook (1995) recognizes the special status of the ICRC and recalls its specific tasks: visiting and interviewing prisoners of war.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 6.2.2.
The ICRC and Nongovernmental Organizations and Other Similar Organizations.
(1) During the course of detention operations, it is likely that U.S. commanders will encounter representatives of organizations attempting to assert a role in protecting the interests of detainees. Such representatives will often seek access to detainees, and/or offer their services to assist in the care and maintenance of detainees. Effective detention operations planning will establish a mechanism for command interaction with such organizations in order to maximize the benefit of potential contributions to the U.S. effort. Commanders must anticipate that, upon initiation of detention operations, these organizations will request access to and/or information about detainees, and they will continue to do so throughout the operation. Commanders should seek guidance through operational command channels for responding to such requests prior to the initiation of detention operations, or as soon thereafter as possible. In the absence of mission-specific guidance, all such requests for access or information should flow via the established chain of command to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
(2) Commanders must also be cognizant of the special status of the ICRC. Per DOD [Department of Defense] policy, the ICRC is the only organization presumptively authorized access to detainees. Consistent with the  Geneva Conventions, it is DOD policy that the ICRC shall be allowed to offer its services during an armed conflict, however characterized, to which the United States is a party. ICRC access to detainees is subject to temporary suspension based on imperative considerations of military necessity. As a general rule, commanders should be in the grade of O-5 or above and should coordinate with a legal adviser before ordering a suspension of ICRC access to a detainee.
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-9.
… An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
… Coordinate all International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visits, and ensure the command responds as necessary to ICRC concerns.
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. II-3–II-4.
- they must be given lists of all persons to be visited (or able to draw up such lists on the spot).
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, p. 19.
When the public prosecutor’s office receives [a] request [for cooperation] from a State that has established its jurisdiction over the offence, it shall make the necessary arrangements to ensure that the person detained under this law may be visited by a representative from the International [Committee of the] Red Cross.
Afghanistan, Law on Combating the Financing of Terrorism, 2004, Article 19(2).
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.
(ii) Representatives of the designated Red Cross International Organization.
(2) The Minister of Defence shall, when he/she finds the restriction or suspension of visits set forth in the preceding paragraph has become unnecessary, order immediately the prisoner-of-war camp commander to terminate such rescission or suspension of the visits.
Japan, Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations, 2004, Articles 80(1)(i) and (ii) and 82(1) and (2).
Any person who is transferred to Rwanda by the ICTR [International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] for trial shall be detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention stipulated in the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December, 1998.
The International Committee of the Red Cross or an observer appointed by the President of the ICTR shall have the right to inspect the conditions of detention of persons transferred to Rwanda by the ICTR and held in detention. The International Committee of the Red Cross or the observer appointed by the ICTR shall submit a confidential report based on the findings of these inspections to the Minister in charge of Justice of Rwanda and to the President of the ICTR.
Rwanda, Organic Law concerning Transfer of Cases to the Republic of Rwanda from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and from Other States, 2007, Article 23.
Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Power shall have permission to go to all places where protected persons are, particularly to places of internment, detention and work.
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule IV: Articles 142-143.
Representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall have permission to go to all places where prisoners of war may be, particularly to places of internment, imprisonment and labour, and shall have access to all premises occupied by prisoners of war; they shall also be allowed to go to the places of departure, passage and arrival of prisoners who are being transferred. They shall be able to interview the prisoners, and in particular the prisoners representatives, without witnesses, either personally or through an interpreter.
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule III: Article 126.
Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order.
United States, Executive Order 13491, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, 2009, Sections 1 and 4(b).
Sec. 1039. Notification and Access of International Committee of the Red Cross With Respect to Detainees at Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
(a) NOTIFICATION.—The head of a military service or department that has custody or effective control of the Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, or of any individual detained at such facility, shall, upon the detention of any such individual at such facility, notify the International Committee of the Red Cross (referred to in this section as the “ICRC”) of such custody or effective control, as soon as practicable.
(B) if access to a such individual is temporarily denied as an exceptional measure, due to reasons of imperative military necessity, as soon thereafter as practicable, consistent with Article 126 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva on August 12, 1949 … but normally no later than the next regularly scheduled ICRC visit.
(2) PROTOCOLS AND AGREEMENTS.—Such access to the individual shall continue pursuant to ICRC protocols and agreements reached between the ICRC and the head of a military service or department with effective control over the Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
(c) SCOPE OF ACCESS.—The ICRC shall be provided access, in accordance with this section, to those physical localities within the Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, that are determined to be relevant to the treatment of an individual described in subsection (a), including the individual’s cell or room, interrogation facilities or rooms, hospital or related health care facilities or rooms, and recreation areas. The scope of access described in this subsection shall not be construed to apply to facilities other than the Theater Internment Facility at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
(d) EXCEPTION CONSISTENT WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR.—Consistent with Article 126 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, access by the ICRC to a detainee as provided for in subsections (b) and (c) may be temporarily denied, as an exceptional measure, for reasons of imperative military necessity.
United States, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 2009, Sec. 1039, p. 264.
Even if meetings with lawyers are prevented, this does not justify the claim that the detainee is isolated from the outside world. It is sufficient to note that when the detainees are moved to the detention facility, which occurs within 48 hours of their detention during warfare, they have the right to be visited by the Red Cross, and their families are informed of their whereabouts.
Israel, High Court of Justice, Mar’ab case, Judgment, 5 February 2003, § 46.
Sri Lanka, Supreme Court, Sivalingam case, Judgment, 10 November 2010, p. 9.
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.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1449, Afghanistan: the ICRC is authorized to visit prisoners, 27 August 1982; Press Release No. 1531, Resumption of ICRC Activities in Afghanistan, 3 February 1987.
[T]he chief of the [Afghan] military police, responsible for the handover[,] briefed the President on the proceedings of the handover from the American forces to the Afghans that took place on Monday as per the government’s decision.
The President once again directed with emphasis the relevant authorities to make sure that all Afghan applicable laws and human rights standards are respected in the prison and to also fully facilitate, upon request, regular access to [the] prison by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Afghanistan, Office of the President, “Afghan Human Rights Commission and ICRC can have regular access to Bagram prison inmates”, Press Release, 11 September 2012.
[I]f we take prisoners in Afghanistan, some are released immediately because they are of no interest whatsoever. Any who are kept, because of suspicion of being involved in terrorist or other activity, are treated by Canada and by our Canadian troops in accordance with all standards of humanitarian and international law. When they are then turned over to either Afghan or American authorities, the Red Cross is notified in accordance with conventions so it can take the inspections. Members of the House have heard the assurances of the American government and others that prisoners will be properly treated in accordance with humanitarian standards.
Canada, House of Commons Debates, Statement by the Minister of National Defence, 30 September 2005, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2006, volume XLIV, p. 646.
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”.
House of Commons Debates, Statement by the Canadian Minister of National Defence, 5 April 2006, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2006, volume XLIV, p. 647.
The agreement acknowledges the right of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit detainees at any time during their custody and an obligation for both parties to notify the ICRC upon transferring a detainee, in accordance with their obligations pursuant to international law. It also establishes a commitment that persons transferred from the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities will not be subject to the application of the death penalty. Finally, it features recognition, by both parties, of the legitimate role of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) with regard to the treatment of detainees. Canada notifies the ICRC in a timely manner each time a detainee transfer occurs and Canada also notifies ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] of any detainees transferred. The information shared with NATO is similar to that provided to the ICRC.
Canada, House of Commons, Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, 39th Parliament, 1st session, June 2007, p. 103.
Access to Afghan facilities is to be permitted to organizations that are already afforded access under that government’s bilateral arrangements with the Government of Afghanistan including, where applicable, the International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC), relevant human rights institutions within the UN system, and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).
Canada, Letter regarding access to detainees transferred to the Government of Afghanistan, signed by Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Chargé d’affaires of Denmark, 27 August 2007, p. 1.
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.
Chile, Statement before the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.943, 6 November 1989, § 42.
Denmark, Letter regarding access to detainees transferred to the Government of Afghanistan, signed by Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Chargé d’affaires of Denmark, 27 August 2007, p. 1.
Visiting prisons: IHL provides that neutral humanitarian organizations, such as the ICRC, visit the prisoners in prisons and camps where they are held and supervise their treatment. After having visited the prisoners, the ICRC makes recommendations to the relevant authorities. Such reports and conclusions remain confidential and shall be discussed only with the responsible authorities.
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 222.
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 223.
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.
El Salvador, Statement before the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.468, 31 October 1983, § 37.
In 1987, it emphasized that the ICRC was informed of arrests and could visit detainees in any detention centre whatsoever.
El Salvador, Statement before the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.719, 2 April 1987, § 3.
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.
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 5.3.
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.
Germany, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3564, 10 August 1995, p. 4.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 224.
The Lebanese authorities have permitted the ICRC to visit detained persons on several occasions, in accordance with ICRC procedures.
ICRC, Annual Report 1990, Geneva, 1991, p. 84.
Nepal, Declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, 26 March 2004, § 22.
21. … the representatives of the International Committee of Red Cross are allowed unhindered access to visit the prisons and places of detention.
36. The historic Comprehensive [Peace] Agreement [CPA] signed between the Government of Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) on 21 November 2006 has effectively ended the ten year long conflict. This has resulted in the fundamental improvement in the overall human rights situation in Nepal.
Nepal, Comments by the Government of Nepal to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, 29 January 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/NPL/CO/2/Add.1, submitted 1 June 2007, §§ 21 and 36.
Netherlands, Letter regarding access to detainees transferred to the Government of Afghanistan, signed by Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Chargé d’affaires of Denmark, 27 August 2007, p. 1.
Norway, Letter regarding access to detainees transferred to the Government of Afghanistan, signed by Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Chargé d’affaires of Denmark, 27 August 2007, p. 1.
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.
Oman, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3564, 10 August 1995, p. 5.
Peru, Statement before the Committee against Torture during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Peru, 9 May 2006, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR. 697 § 39.
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.
ICRC, Annual Report 2000, Geneva, 2001, p. 168.
Rwanda, Speech by the President, 15 October 1990, p. 6.
Serbia, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 8 February 2007, UN Doc. CAT/C/SRB/1, submitted 3 May 2006, as amended by CAT/C/SRB/2/Corr.1, 23 September 2008, § 168.
20. Under section 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979 of Sri Lanka, a person arrested under … normal circumstances would be detained in … police custody for [a] maximum of 24 hrs.
22. However, the court closely monitors the investigation and other activities of the police in connection with persons arrested under any law. … Opportunities are … given to them [persons arrested] to meet independent monitoring bodies such as [the] ICRC to whom they could make their complaints, if any.
88. With regard to two specific cases raised by the Special Rapporteur, relating to the Prison at Bogambara and the Terrorist Investigation Division, the Special Rapporteur was informed that disciplinary action was being taken in the first case and that, in relation to conditions of detention in the second, that the Division was being moved to a new location. The ICRC has been consulted as to international standards relating to space, ventilation and light available to detainees.
Sri Lanka, Combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, 23 September 2010, UN Doc. CAT/C/LKA/3-4, submitted 17 August 2009, Annex, §§ 20–22 and 88.
The conditions of detention, and use as a workforce, are regulated by the Third Geneva Convention. Prisoners of war have the right to be visited by delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 25 and 34.
Switzerland, Answer by the Federal Council to interpellation 10.3991 in Parliament regarding the right of Gilad Shalit to receive visits from the ICRC, 16 February 2011.
325. The Prisons Act and the Rules made under it provide for visiting Justices to inspect Prisons to which they are appointed, at regular intervals. A visiting Justice may inspect all wards, cells and rooms to assess the living conditions and physical facilities of the prisons and prisoners. They are also supposed to hear complaints from Prisoners.
326. There are other bodies which have a supervisory role on prisons. These include the Red Cross Societies.
Uganda, Initial report to the Human Rights Committee, 14 February 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/UGA/2003/1, 25 February 2003, §§ 325–326.
On 19 January  the Iraqi Ambassador was asked whether the Iraqi Government was holding any British prisoners of war and reminded of Iraq’s obligations under the Third Geneva Convention to … arrange access by the ICRC. The Iraqi Ambassador gave an assurance that any British prisoners of war would be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions … The British Government has made clear to the Iraqi Ambassador … [that] the British Government will be allowing full access by the ICRC both to Iraqi prisoners of war and to Iraqi citizens detained in the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom, Letter dated 21 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22117, 21 January 1991, p. 1.
[W]e have made the strongest representations again to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the representatives of which have been here seeking access to Iraqis who have been detained to ensure that they are receiving proper treatment. They were naturally granted access and we gave them every opportunity, to which they are entitled, to visit Iraqis to see whether they are receiving proper treatment. We have insisted that similar facilities must be available to representatives of the International Red Cross in Baghdad.
United Kingdom, Letter dated 28 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22156, 28 January 1991, p. 2; see also Letter dated 13 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2221, 13 February 1991, p. 2.
United Kingdom, Foreign Policy Aspects of the War Against Terrorism: Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Cm 6162, 29 March 2004, § 3.
The prison conditions are in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. All internees are informed of the reason for their detention as stipulated by the fourth Geneva Convention. The ICRC has full, uninhibited access to all internees, and regularly reports to the military authorities. Our relationship with the ICRC is excellent.
We understand the ICRC has had access to Afghan government prisons and to US detention facilities in Bagram and Kandahar. The UK welcomes this access, and calls for the ICRC to be given full access to detention facilities throughout Afghanistan. ICRC reports on detainees are, however, strictly confidential between the ICRC and the country concerned.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 14 October 2004, Vol. 425, Written Answers, col. 360W.
It is customary international practice for reports from the ICRC on security detention to remain confidential between the ICRC and the detaining power. We believe it is important to maintain that policy of confidentially so as to, inter alia, encourage the free and frank exchange of views about detention in all locations where ICRC carry out their valuable work.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 3 May 2006, Vol. 445, Written Answers, col. 1654W.
Under the terms of the MOU agreed between the UK and the Afghan Government, representatives of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and International Committee of the Red Cross will have full access to any persons transferred by the UK Armed Forces to Afghan authorities whilst such persons are in custody, as will the UK.
United Kingdom, House of Commons Defence Committee, The UK deployment to Afghanistan: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, HC 1211, 5 June 2006, para. 36.
According to the IPS [Israel Prison Service], 6,223 security prisoners (those convicted by Israeli courts of terrorism-related crimes) were being held in IPS facilities in May 2006. A further 1,656 were being held awaiting trial. According to the IPS, security detainees are allowed family visits and are given medical and dental care. The International Committee of the Red Cross regularly visits IPS facilities and makes recommendations on conditions inside Israeli prisons to the Israeli authorities.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 10 July 2006, Vol. 684, Written Answers, col. WA91.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 19 February 2007, Vol. 457, Written Answers, col. 303W.
United Kingdom, Letter regarding access to detainees transferred to the Government of Afghanistan, signed by Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Chargé d’affaires of Denmark, 27 August 2007, p. 1.
1.2 This Policy Statement, which is to be observed whenever UK Armed Forces undertake detention in an operation theatre reflects the importance which I attach to ensuring the humane treatment of those it is necessary to detain in the course of our operations.
h. Where appropriate, provide information and access to facilities to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as fully and rapidly as practicable, and permit Detained Persons unfettered correspondence with the ICRC.
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Strategic Detention Policy, Policy Statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, March 2010, §§ 1.2–1.3, 2.1 and 3.1(h).
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 29 November 2010, Vol. 519, Written Answers, col. 555W.
United Kingdom, Army Inspectorate Review into the Implementation of Policy, Training and Conduct of Detainee Handling, Final Report by the Army Inspector, File Ref. CGS/ArmyInsp/DH/01, 15 July 2010, § 8(c), p. 10; see also § 7(c),p. 6.
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”.
United States, Department of State, Diplomatic Note to Iraq, Washington, 19 January 1991, annexed to Letter dated 21 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22122, Annex I, p. 2; see also Annex III, p. 4.
The coalition forces are granting ICRC timely access to all Iraqi prisoners of war. Iraqi authorities have continued to ignore the standards of the Geneva conventions in blatant disregard for international law. They have denied access to coalition prisoners of war by ICRC.
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”.
United States, State Department, Response to UNCHR Opinion No. 5/2003 of 8 May 2003 and the Communication of 8 January 2003 of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, August 2003.
Finding: There was neither a defined procedure nor specific responsibility within CJTF-7 for dealing with ICRC visits. ICRC recommendations were ignored by MI [Military Intelligence], MP [Military Police] and CJTF-7 personnel.
Explanation: Within this investigation’s timeframe, 16 September 2003 through 31 January 2004, the ICRC visited Abu Ghraib three times, notifying CJTF-7 twice of their visit results, describing serious violations of international Humanitarian Law and of the Geneva Conventions. In spite of the ICRC’s role as independent observers, there seemed to be a consensus among personnel at Abu Ghraib that the allegations were not true. Neither the leadership, nor CJTF-7 made any attempt to verify the allegations.
Recommendation: DoD [Department of Defense] should review current policy concerning ICRC visits and establish procedures whereby findings and recommendations made by the ICRC are investigated. Investigation should not be done by the units responsible for the facility in question. Specific procedures and responsibilities should be developed for ICRC visits, reports, and responses. There also needs to be specific inquiries made into ICRC allegations of abuse or maltreatment by an independent entity to ensure that an unbiased review has occurred.
United States, Department of Defense, AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Prison and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade (The Fay Report), 25 August 2004.
The law of armed conflict governs the conduct of armed conflict and related detention operations, and permits lawful and unlawful enemy combatants to be detained until the end of active hostilities without charges, trial, or access to counsel.
• Combatants may be detained to prevent them from taking up arms against the United States.
• This is the principal reason for Guantánamo detention, an important point which the Report questions and disregards.
• It is also the reason why the United States has given the International Committee of the Red Cross, rather than human rights rapporteurs, unimpeded access to the detainees at Guantánamo.
United States, Reply of the Government of the United States of America to the Report of the Five UNCHR Special Rapporteurs on Detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, 10 March 2006, p. 11.
Most of the enemy combatants we capture are held in Afghanistan or in Iraq, where they’re questioned by our military personnel. Many are released after questioning, or turned over to local authorities – if we determine that they do not pose a continuing threat and no longer have significant intelligence value. Others remain in American custody near the battlefield, to ensure that they don’t return to the fight.
In some cases, we determine that individuals we have captured pose a significant threat, or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks. Many are al Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save American lives. In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly [sic], questioned by experts, and – when appropriate – prosecuted for terrorist acts.
[I]n addition to the terrorists held at Guantánamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September the 11th attacks, and attacks on the USS Cole, an operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world. These are dangerous men with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans for new attacks. The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.
Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged. Doing so would provide our enemies with information they could use to take retribution against our allies and harm our country. I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks – here in the United States and across the world. Today, I’m going to share with you some of the examples provided by our intelligence community of how this program has saved lives; why it remains vital to the security of the United States, and our friends and allies; and why it deserves the support of the United States Congress and the American people.
This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers; they’ve determined it complied with our laws. This program has received strict oversight by the CIA’s Inspector General.
These men will be held in a high-security facility at Guantánamo. The International Committee of the Red Cross is being advised of their detention, and will have the opportunity to meet with them. Those charged with crimes will be given access to attorneys who will help them prepare their defense – and they will be presumed innocent. While at Guantánamo, they will have access to the same food, clothing, medical care, and opportunities for worship as other detainees. They will be questioned subject to the new U.S. Army Field Manual, which the Department of Defense is issuing today. And they will continue to be treated with the humanity that they denied others.
I know Americans have heard conflicting information about Guantánamo. Let me give you some facts. Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantánamo. Of these, about 315 have been returned to other countries so far – and about 455 remain in our custody. They are provided the same quality of medical care as the American service members who guard them. The International Committee of the Red Cross has the opportunity to meet privately with all who are held there. The facility has been visited by government officials from more than 30 countries, and delegations from international organizations, as well. After the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe came to visit, one of its delegation members called Guantánamo “a model prison” where people are treated better than in prisons in his own country.
United States, President George W. Bush, White House speech, President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists, 6 September 2006.
United States, Letter regarding access to detainees transferred to the Government of Afghanistan, signed by Ambassadors of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and the Chargé d’affaires of Denmark, 27 August 2007, p. 1.
The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaida, the Taliban, and their supporters. As part of this conflict, the United States captures and detains enemy combatants, and is entitled under the law of war to hold them until the end of hostilities. The law of war, and not the Covenant, is the applicable legal framework governing these detentions.
In certain rare cases, the United States moves enemy combatants to secret locations. As the President of the United States stated in a September 6, 2006 speech, “Questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks – here in the United States and across the world.” Under the law of war there is no legal obligation for the United States to provide ICRC notice and access to these enemy combatants who are held during the ongoing armed conflict with al Qaida, the Taliban, and their supporters.
All of the detainees who were in this secret interrogation program as of September 6, 2006, were moved to the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. The ICRC has been notified and has access to these detainees, as they have to all detainees at Guantánamo.
United States, Comments by the Government of the United States of America on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, 12 February 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1/Add.1, submitted 1 November 2007, p. 3.
United States, Further comments by the Government of the United States of America on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, 24 September 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1/Add.2, submitted 24 July 2009.
Most of these recommendations referred to our country’s continuing armed conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and against Al Qaeda and associated forces. … The International Committee of the Red Cross has access to Guantánamo.
United States, Statement by the Legal Adviser, US Department of State, before the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva, 9 November 2010, p. 2.
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.
Uruguay, Statement before the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.355, 8 April 1982, § 10.
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.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1775, Yemen: ICRC active on both sides appeals to belligerents, 12 May 1994.
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.
UN Security Council, Res. 770, 13 August 1992, preamble; Res. 771, 13 August 1992, § 4, voting record: 12-0-3.
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.
UN Security Council, Res. 968, 16 December 1994, § 10, voting record: 15-0-0.
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.
UN Security Council, Res. 1009, 10 August 1995, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
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.
UN Security Council, Res. 1010, 10 August 1995, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.
2. Reaffirms its demand that … the Bosnian Serb party give immediate and unimpeded access to representatives of … the ICRC and other international agencies … to persons detained … and permit representatives of the ICRC (i) to visit and register any persons detained against their will, whether civilians or members of the forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
UN Security Council, Res. 1019, 9 November 1995, preamble and § 2, voting record: 15-0-0; see also Res. 1034, 21 December 1995, preamble and §§ 2–5, voting record: 15-0-0.
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.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/43, 7 September 1995.
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.
UN General Assembly, Res. 2676 (XXV), 9 December 1970, § 1, voting record: 67-30-20-10.
Demands that the International Committee of the Red Cross be granted immediate, unimpeded and continued access to all camps, prisons and to other places of detention within the territory of the former Yugoslavia and that all parties ensure complete safety and freedom of movement for the International Committee and otherwise facilitate such access.
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/242, 25 August 1992, § 9, voting record: 136-1-5-37; see also UN General Assembly, Res. 48/153, 20 December 1993, §§ 14–16, adopted without a vote; UN General Assembly, Res. 49/10, 3 November 1994, § 25, voting record: 97-0-61-26;and Res. 49/196, 23 December 1994, §§ 23–24, voting record: 150-0-14-21.
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.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/70, 21 April 1998, § 5(f), adopted without a vote.
Affirms the obligation of Israel to commit itself to allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit the detainees regularly, as well as to allowing other international humanitarian organizations to do so and to verify their sanitary and humanitarian conditions and, in particular, the circumstances of their detention.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/8, 16 April 2003, § 3, voting record: 32-1-20.
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”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/16, 17 April 2003, § 15, adopted without a vote.
The activities carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations, especially those related to promoting respect for international humanitarian law, in such areas as medical assistance, relief activities and visits to detained persons, as well as efforts by other humanitarian organizations including United Nations agencies to rehabilitate the country’s infrastructure to allow resettlement and reintegration of internally displaced persons and returning refugees.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/80, 25 April 2003, § 1(o), adopted without a vote.
To ensure full and unimpeded access without prior notice of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross to all persons held in detention, including places of detention under the authority of the Royal Nepalese Army.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, § 11(b), adopted without a vote.
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”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/82, 21 April 2005, § 3(h), adopted without a vote.
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”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Chairman’s statement on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/L.10/Add.10, 24 April 1996, § 87.
arrests and detains, generally for short periods, persons suspected of engaging in militia activities. The ICRC was consulted by INTERFET in the development of detention procedures to ensure that they were in accordance with international standards. [The ICRC] has access to persons arrested and detained by INTERFET, and regularly visits them in accordance with standard ICRC working procedures.
ICRC, Update No. 99/05 on ICRC Activities in Indonesia/East Timor, 29 November 1999, § 4.
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”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 854, 20 November 1985, § 6.
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.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1050, 10 November 1994, § 6(i)(c).
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.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1066, 27 September 1995, § 6(iv).
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”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1077, 24 January 1996, § 5(i)(b).
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.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1385, 24 September 1998, § 7(iii)(a).
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”.
European Parliament, Resolution on violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Chechnya, 16 March 2000, § 5.
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.
EU, Statement by the Presidency before the OSCE Permanent Council concerning the situation in Chechnya, 2 February 1995, pp. 3–4.
To urge the Member States of the League [of Arab States] to use their good offices in international organisations so that all necessary representations are made to government of Israel, the occupying power, to enable the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations to visit the detainees in Khiam and Marj Uyun periodically and on a regular basis, and to ensure that the conditions in which they are being kept are inspected, that they are provided with health and humanitarian care and that their relatives are allowed to visit them regularly.
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5635, 31 March 1997, § 4.
In 1995, the OSCE Permanent Council requested that the ICRC be given unrestricted access to detainees in the context of the conflict in Chechnya.
OSCE, Permanent Council, Resolution on Chechnya, 3 February 1995, §§ 6 and 11.
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”.
OSCE, Ministerial Council, Decision on the Minsk Process, Doc. MC(5).DEC/3, 8 December 1995, § 3.
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”.
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October 1965, Res. XXIV.
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”.
21st International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, 6–13 September 1969, Res. XI.
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”.
24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 7–14 November 1981, Res. IV.
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”.
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. I, § 3.
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”.
88th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Stockholm, 7–12 September 1992, Resolution on support to the recent international initiatives to halt the violence and put an end to the violations of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 4.
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”.
Peace Implementation Conference for Bosnia and Herzegovina, London, 8–9 December 1995, Conclusions, annexed to Letter dated 11 December 1995 from the United Kingdom to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1995/1029, 12 December 1995, § 25.
undertake, in accordance with the modalities set out below, the inspection of conditions of detention and the treatment of persons awaiting trial or appeal before the Tribunal or otherwise detained on the authority of the Tribunal in the Penitentiary Complex or in the holding cells located at the premises of the Tribunal.
The “modalities” proposed included that the ICRC would be able to inspect and report on all aspects of conditions of detention; that it would have unlimited access to the detention facilities; and that it would be free to communicate with the detainees without witnesses being present.
ICTY, Letter from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, 28 April 1995, IRRC, No. 311, 1996, pp. 238–242.
In response, the ICRC President stated that it was within the mandate of the ICRC to visit persons detained in connection with armed conflicts and that the organization was, therefore, ready to carry out visits to detainees held by the ICTY. The conditions outlined in the letter from the ICTY were described as corresponding to “the traditional modalities under which the ICRC assesses the conditions of detention and the treatment of detainees, in particular by interviewing them in private, and makes the appropriate recommendations to the authorities concerned”.
ICRC, Letter from the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross to the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 5 May 1995, IRRC, No. 311, 1996, pp. 238–242.
The State party should immediately cease its practice of secret detention and close all secret detention facilities. It should also grant the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to any person detained in connection with an armed conflict. The State party should also ensure that detainees, regardless of their place of detention, always benefit from the full protection of the law.
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of the United States of America, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1, 18 December 2006, § 12.
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”.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Peruvian Prisons case (Provisional Measures), Order, 27 January 1993, § 3.
58. The ICRC is assigned significant responsibilities in a number of articles of the [1949 Third Geneva] Convention. These provisions make clear that the ICRC may function in at least two different capacities – as a humanitarian organization providing relief and as an organization providing necessary and vital external scrutiny of the treatment of POWs [prisoners of war], either supplementary to a Protecting Power or as a substitute when there is no Protecting Power. There is no evidence before the Commission that Protecting Powers were proposed by either Ethiopia or Eritrea, and it seems evident that none was appointed. Nevertheless, the Convention clearly requires external scrutiny of the treatment of POWs and, in Article 10, where there is no Protecting Power or other functioning oversight body, it requires Detaining Powers to “accept … the offer of the services of a humanitarian organization, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, to assume the humanitarian functions performed by Protecting Powers under the present Convention.” In that event, Article 10 also provides that all mention of Protecting Powers in the Convention applies to such substitute organizations.
59. The right of the ICRC to have access to POWs is not limited to a situation covered by Article 10 in which it serves as a substitute for a Protecting Power. Article 126 specifies clear and critical rights of Protecting Powers with respect to access to camps and to POWs, including the right to interview POWs without witnesses, and it states that the delegates of the ICRC “shall enjoy the same prerogatives.” Ethiopia relies primarily on Article 126 in its allegation that Eritrea violated its legal obligations by refusing the ICRC access to its POWs.
60. Professor Levie points out in his monumental study of the treatment of POWs in international armed conflicts that the ICRC “has played an indispensable humanitarian role in every armed conflict for more than a century.” He also notes that, in addition to the work by the many Protecting Powers, the ICRC played a vital role in protecting POWs during the Second World War, when it made a total of 11,175 visits to installations where POWs and civilian internees were confined. Levie also lists the places where the ICRC and protecting powers have been excluded in recent times – the Soviet Union (1940–45), North Korea and the Peoples Republic of China (1950–53), and North Vietnam (1965–73). It is common knowledge that the treatment of POWs by the named Parties in those four places where the ICRC was unlawfully excluded was far worse than that required by the standards of applicable law. The long term result of these exclusions has been a reinforcement of the general understanding of the crucial role played by outside observers in the effective functioning of the legal regime for the protection of POWs.
79. It is undoubtedly because a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the human person and “elementary considerations of humanity” as the Court put it in its Judgment of 9 April 1949 in the Corfu Channel Case (I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22), that the Hague and Geneva Conventions have enjoyed a broad accession. Further these fundamental rules are to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law.
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim, Partial Award, 1 July 2003, §§ 58–61.
d) have full liberty to select the places they wish to visit.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 719; see also § 839 (application mutatis mutandis of the regulations for the treatment of POWs to civilian internees).
• Access to all persons deprived of their liberty for reasons related to armed conflict or internal violence, at all stages of their detention and in all places where they are held.
• Possibility to talk freely and in private with the persons deprived of their liberty of its choice.
• Possibility to register the identity of the persons deprived of their liberty.
•Possibility to repeat its visits to persons deprived of their liberty on a regular basis.
• ICRC must be authorized to inform families of the detention of their relatives and to ensure family news between persons deprived of their liberty and their families, whenever necessary.
In practice, the authorities often restrict access by the ICRC to persons deprived of their liberty during the first stage of detention. Such restrictions are not acceptable to the ICRC, unless it is for a short period, and have been the subject of many representations by the ICRC to the authorities concerned.
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”.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1152b, ICRC puts the Record Straight on Con Son, 21 March 1973.
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”.
ICRC, Conflict in Southern Africa: ICRC appeal, 19 March 1979, § 7, IRRC, No. 209, 1979. p. 89.
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”.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1744, Eastern Bosnia: ICRC unable to assist conflict victims, 17 April 1993.
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”.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1797, ICRC calls for compliance with international law in Turkey and Northern Iraq, 22 March 1995.
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”.
Bangkok Post, Red Cross shuts office in Burma out of frustration, 20 June 1995.
The detaining authority must authorize the ICRC to have access to … persons [arrested], wherever they may be, so that its delegates may ascertain their well-being and forward news to their families.

References: § 4
 § 2
 § 5
 § 4
 § 141
 § 241
 § 331
 § 51
 § 62
 § 1037
 § 1233
 § 1502
 § 1708
 § 106
 § 313
 § 6
 § 22
 § 0243
 § 1118
 § 937
 § 25
 § 56
 § 90
 § 71
 § 26
 § 57
 § 81
 § 2
 § 1
 § 277
 § 278
 § 626
 § 20
 § 15
 § 6
 § 46
 § 42
 § 37
 § 3
 § 224
 § 22
 § 39
 § 168
 § 3
 § 8
 § 7
 § 10
 § 4
 § 10
 § 3
 § 1
 § 2
 § 1
 § 9
 § 25
 § 5
 § 3
 § 15
 § 1
 § 11
 § 3
 § 87
 § 4
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 5
 § 7
 § 5
 § 4
 § 3
 § 3
 § 4
 § 25
 § 12
 § 3
 § 719
 § 839
 § 7