Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65_sectionf
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 02:53:53+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning the improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 59.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 85(3)(f) and (5). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
Article 21(1) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided that “when carried out in order to commit or resume hostilities, … the feigning of a situation of distress, notably through the misuse of an internationally recognized protective sign” was considered perfidy.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 39.
However, this proposal was deleted from draft Article 21 adopted in Committee III of the CDDH.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/407/Rev.1, 17 March–10 June 1977, p. 502.
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[m]aking improper use of … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(vii).
The Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations between Belligerents, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 August 1913, Article 15.
(f) vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the red cross or red crescent.
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 110.
Paragraph 111(a) of the 1994 San Remo Manual states that perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning exempt status.
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 111(a).
Pursuant to Article 20(b)(v) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[t]he perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun” is a war crime.
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(b)(v).
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(vii), “[m]aking improper use of … the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(vii).
Under Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), “the perfidious use of the sign of the Red Cross or Red Crescent” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 504.
f. vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 635 and 636.
• vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict , Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 6.35.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 6.36.
The manual also states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include “the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal and other Red Cross societies, or of other protective signs recognised by the Conventions or the Protocol”.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.26.
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states that “using the red cross emblem to cover hostile acts” is an act of perfidy.
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 32.
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Dossier d’Instruction pour Soldat, à l’attention des officiers instructeurs, JS3, Etat-Major Général, Forces Armées belges, undated, p. 19.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The perfidious use of the following signs and signals constitutes a grave breach [of IHL]: … distinctive sign indicating specially protected persons or objects”.
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. 46; see also Part I bis, pp. 46, 68 and 115.
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. 84.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that “using the emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent to transport personnel or material intended for the war effort” is considered a perfidious act.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 64, § 234.
According to the manual, “abuse of the signs of the red cross or red crescent” is also a perfidious act.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 149, § 531.1.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “the abuse of the signs of the Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal” constitutes an “act of perfidy”.
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 59, § 251; see also p. 85, § 341 and p. 183, § 494.A.
The manual further states that “using the emblems of the Red Ross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal to transport personnel or material designated for the war effort” is an act of perfidy.
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 193, § 494.A.
c) Distinctive signs used for the identification of the medical service and civil defence.
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. 296, § 661.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that “feigning … non-combatant status” is a perfidious act and that medical personnel of the armed forces are non-combatants.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 3-3, § 20, p. 6-2, § 9(c) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(c) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(d) (naval warfare); see also p. 8-10, § 79(f) (prohibition of actively simulating the status of vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the red cross and red crescent).
The manual also provides that “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … medical aircraft” is an act of perfidy in air warfare.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(a).
The manual further provides that “perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 10, § 10.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on naval warfare: “Warships and auxiliary vessels are also prohibited from actively simulating the status of: … f. vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 856.5.f.
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … medical aircraft”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.a.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
False and improper use of the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem is prohibited. The use of the Red Cross to shield the movement of troops or ammunitions is also prohibited. Perfidy is a war crime. Committing a hostile act under the cover of the protection provided by the distinctive emblem would constitute perfidy.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 10, § 10.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that the “perfidious use of protective signs” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and, as such, a war crime.
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. 108.
the perfidious use of signs and signals, such as the distinctive signs which designate persons or objects specifically protected (… delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross or other recognized humanitarian organizations), … [or of] distinctive signs used for the identification of the medical service.
Colombia, Normas de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Directiva Permanente No. 017, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 17 August 1993, Section III(D).
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that the use of the red cross emblem to hide armaments or to deceive the adversary is “a grave breach of IHL called perfidy”.
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 26; see also p. 49.
They are enumerated by the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, as well as by the Ivorian Penal Code.
- articles 472 and 473 [punish] the usurpation of a uniform, a decoration, signs and emblems.
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. 13, 15–16 and 29–30.
IHL prohibits recourse to perfidy with the aim to kill, injure or capture an enemy.
Regarded as perfidy is any act which appeals to the good faith of the enemy, with the intention to deceive him, and with the aim to make him believe that he is entitled to receive, or has the obligation to give, protection provided by the rules of IHL.
- using unduly the emblem of the red cross, the red crescent or the red crystal or any other distinctive sign.
Côte d’Ivoire, 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. 41–42.
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) provides that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 56.
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 46.
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 5.
- perfidy, which consists of utilizing the emblem in times of conflict in order to protect combatants or military material; perfidious use of the emblem constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL, that is to say, a war crime.
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. 16.
The manual also states that the following “are currently considered as war crimes … if committed against any person not or no longer participating in hostilities: … perfidiously utilizing the protective emblem of the red cross or red crescent”.
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, pp. 50–51.
Misuse of protective signs, signals, and symbols … in order to injure, kill, or capture the enemy constitutes an act of perfidy. Such acts are prohibited because they undermine the effectiveness of protective signs, signals, and symbols and thereby jeopardize the safety of non-combatants and the immunity of protected structures and activities. For example, using an ambulance or medical aircraft marked with the red cross or red crescent to carry armed combatants, weapons, or ammunition with which to attack or elude enemy forces is prohibited.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 12.2.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.4.
The Summary Note also states that the “perfidious use of protected signs and signals” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 3.4.
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states that the recourse to perfidy is prohibited, “notably the abuse … of distinctive signs, such as the Red Cross”.
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 3.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 46.
The manual further states that the camouflage of a military activity in a relief operation, such as using an ambulance to permit the passage of combatants through enemy lines or using the red cross to lure the enemy into an ambush, is to be regarded as a war crime.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 62 and 94.
Generally, the manual considers that using a protective sign to deceive the enemy and reach an operational goal constitutes an act of perfidy, while “the perfidious use of any protective sign recognized by international law constitutes a war crime”.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 62 and 118; see also p. 115.
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 640; see also § 1209.
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the perfidious use of the emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent” constitutes perfidy.
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 5, § 4.
Under Hungary’s Military Manual (1992), the misuse of distinctive signs is an act of perfidy.
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 63.
The manual also states that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 90.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
It is forbidden to pose as … Red Cross personnel or use [this] organization’s uniform, flag and emblem … It is prohibited to misuse the emblems of medical personnel (a cross, crescent or red shield of David).
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 56 and 57.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 36.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states that grave breaches of international conventions and protocols, including “the perfidious use … of international protective signs”, constitute war crimes.
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 85.
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 46.
The use of protective emblems as “cover” for belligerent actions or to harm the enemy in any way constitutes an ACT OF PERFIDY, which is a serious violation of International Law and severely punished by the Wartime Military Penal Code.
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 241.
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states that “feigning non-combatant status” is an example of treachery.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 7.
The manual specifies that medical and religious personnel of the armed forces are to be regarded as non-combatants.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 9.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states that “it is prohibited to feign a protected status thereby inviting the confidence of the enemy”, such as the abuse of distinctive signs.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-O, § 14.
Treachery means misusing the protection given by the law of war, for example misusing the Red Cross … [The 1977 Additional Protocol I] gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: … feigning to possess the status of civilian or non combatant (for example medical personnel or the personnel of the Red Cross).
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-2.
It is forbidden to misuse the recognized emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. It is also forbidden to make unauthorized use of other signs and emblems mentioned in the conventions on the law of war. These include signs of civilian protection and cultural property. Signs mean illuminated signs and electronic communication and identification, as governed by AP [1977 Additional Protocol I] Annex I.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0416.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 611(2).
The manual also states that “perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, crescent or lion and sun” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 1701(1) and 1703(3)(f).
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(f).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the “perfidious use of the distinctive sign of the red cross [or] red crescent” is a war crime.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.a.(8); see also § 172.h.
(5) deliberate misuse of the distinctive sign of the red cross … (act of perfidy), causing death or seriously endangering physical health or integrity.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 83.f.(5).
Carrying out hostile operations of any kind, even aerial reconnaissance, under cover of aircraft registration numbers or markings belonging to … humanitarian agencies, non-governmental organizations and international agencies engaged in eminently humanitarian or neutral functions.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 165.b.(2).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that the “perfidious use of the distinctive sign of the red cross, red crescent or other protective signs” is a war crime.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 32(c)(1)(a)(8), p. 248.
(5) Deliberate misuse of the distinctive sign of the red cross, red crescent or other recognized protected signs, causing death or seriously endangering physical health or integrity.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 74(f)(5), p. 273.
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning the status of a protected person by abusing the signs and emblems of the International Red Cross” is an act of perfidy.
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 35.
b. armed combatants on their equipments e.g. ambulances or helicopters to transport armed combatants, ammunition or to mark ammunition dumps, [in a] position to deceive their enemies.
Note that these actions are considered perfidy, a war crime that is punishable. If witnessed, it should be reported to your superior.
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 49.
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “It is forbidden … to fight while under the protection of the red cross or red crescent emblem.” It is considered as perfidy and a grave breach of the law of armed conflict.
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 34(c).
The manual also states that “perfidious use of the red cross or red crescent emblem … in violation of Article 37 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, §§ 37(d) and 41.
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 56(c).
The manual also provides that “[t]he perfidious use of any distinctive sign or marking protecting persons or objects, such as medical personnel” is a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime.
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 57.
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, § 10.8.e.(1).
The manual also states that it is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime “to make a perfidious use of the distinctive sign of the Red Cross”.
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, § 9.2.a.(2).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) prohibits the act of perfidy and states that it is a war crime to make “[deliberate] misuse of … recognized protective emblems (act of perfidy), causing death or seriously endangering physical health or integrity”.
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, § 9.2.a.(2).(b).
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.1.b, p. 29.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that the “perfidious use of the distinctive sign of the Red Cross, Red Crescent … in violation of Article 37 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 193(1)(f).
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.7.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 379.
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that the “feigning of non-combatant status” is an example of treachery.
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 4, p. 12, § 2(a).
The Pamphlet specifies that “medical personnel, chaplains and civilians accompanying the armed forces are non-combatants”.
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 3, p. 10, § 8(a).
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 7.24.1.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 7.13.
(6) the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or of other protective signs recognized by the Conventions or the Protocol.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.25.
using a hospital or other building accorded such protection as an observation post or military office or depot; firing from a building or tent displaying the emblem of the Red Cross; using a hospital train or airplane to facilitate the escape of combatants; displaying the emblem on vehicles containing ammunition or other non-medical stores; and in general cloaking acts of hostility.
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, § 55.
Medical aircraft cannot retain status as protected medical aircraft during any flight in which they engage in any activity other than the transportation of patients and medical personnel or medical equipment and supplies. Use of the red cross during such a mission would be perfidious and unlawful.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 2-6(e).
The Pamphlet also states that “the feigning by combatants of civilian, non-combatant status” is a perfidious act.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 8-3(a).
The Pamphlet specifies that medical and religious personnel of the armed forces are non-combatants.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 3-4(c).
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, p. 7.
The law of war prohibits treacherous acts. For example, there were occasions in World War II when the Nazis improperly identified buildings as hospitals and certain areas as protected areas. They really used the buildings or areas for direct military purposes such as observation posts, troop billets, defensive positions, or ammunition storage … Such tactics are prohibited because they destroy the basis for the restoration of peace short of the complete destruction of one side or the other.
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, p. 8.
In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: … misusing the Red Cross emblem such as using a medical evacuation helicopter to transport combat troops.
Misuse of protective signs, signals, and symbols … in order to injure, kill, or capture the enemy constitutes an act of perfidy. Such acts are prohibited because they undermine the effectiveness of protective signs, signals, and symbols and thereby jeopardize the safety of noncombatants and the immunity of protected structures and activities. For example, using an ambulance or medical aircraft marked with the red cross or red crescent to carry armed combatants, weapons, or ammunition with which to attack or elude enemy forces is prohibited.
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), § 12.2.
Improperly using protective signs, signals, and symbols … to injure, kill, or capture the enemy is an act of perfidy. Such acts are prohibited because they undermine the effectiveness of protective signs, signals, and symbols and thereby jeopardize the safety of noncombatants and the immunity of protected structures and activities. For example, using an ambulance or medical aircraft marked with the red cross or red crescent to carry armed combatants, weapons, or ammunition with which to attack or elude enemy forces is prohibited.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/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 Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 12.2.
Note: Many national instruments ensure the protection of the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion and sun at all times, while others specifically address and criminalize the perfidious use of the emblems in times of armed conflict. Only the latter materials have been included here. For legislation on the misuse, abuse or improper use of the emblems which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 59.
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act (1995).
[and when] the perpetrator’s conduct results in death or serious personal injury.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.44.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the perfidious use in time of war of the flags and signs of the red cross and red crescent or of the colours of medical transport units” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 119(1).
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides that “the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross” constitutes a crime under international law.
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3)(16).
29. perfidious use of the red cross or red crescent distinctive emblem or other protective emblems of international humanitarian law, when it results in loss of life or serious injury.
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(29).
16. perfidious use of the red cross or red crescent distinctive emblem or other protective emblems of international humanitarian law, when it results in loss of life or serious injury.
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(16).
Any person who has wilfully committed, or given the order to commit, acts which have caused the death or serious injury to the body or health of an adversary by making perfidious use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or of a distinctive signal, i.e., having invited the good faith of this adversary, with the intent to betray that good faith, to make him believe that he is entitled to receive or obliged to accord the protection provided by the rules of International Humanitarian Law, has committed a war crime.
Bolivia, Emblem Law, 2002, Article 11.
Anyone who has wilfully committed, or has given the order to commit, acts resulting in the death of, or causing serious injury to the body or health of an adversary by misusing the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblem or a distinctive signal in times of war, has committed a war crime and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code.
Misuse means appealing to the adversary with the intention to deceive him and make him believe that he is entitled to receive or is obliged to confer the protection provided for by the rules of international humanitarian law.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Emblem Law, 2002, Article 24.
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended by An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act, assented to on 22 June 2007, Section 3(1.1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In accordance with the Penal Code of the Central African Republic, any person who, intentionally, commits or gives an order to commit acts leading to the death or to grave harm to the physical integrity or health of an adversary through the improper use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or one of the distinctive signals, shall be punished.
The improper use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or of one of the distinctive signals is considered to be a war crime.
Central African Republic, Law on the Red Cross Emblem, 2009, Article 18.
Any person who, intentionally, in time of war, commits or gives the order to commit acts resulting in the death of or causing serious harm to the body or health of an adversary by making perfidious use of the emblem of the red cross or red crescent or a distinctive signal, commits a war crime and is punished by forced labour.
Perfidious use means improperly using the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or other protective signs recognized by international humanitarian law, or improperly using the badge of a parlementaire, the flag or military insignia and uniform of the enemy, or of the United Nations, and by doing so, causing the loss of human lives or serious injuries.
Chad, Emblem Law, 2014, Article 11.
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), in an article entitled “Perfidy”, imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, with intent to harm or attack the adversary, … uses improperly signs of protection such as the Red Cross or the Red Crescent”.
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 143.
Colombia, Emblem Law, 2004, Article 11.
Colombia, Emblem Law, 2004, Article 13.
Colombia, Decree No. 138, 2005, Article 2; see also Article 13.
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”.
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).
any person who, inviting the good faith of the adversary with intent to make him believe that he is entitled to protection of his physical integrity or his life or that he is obliged to accord protection in conformity with International Humanitarian Law, uses, or orders to be used, perfidiously the protective emblem.
Costa Rica, Emblem Law, 2000, Article 8.
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes “any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach”.
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).
El Salvador’s Emblem Law (2000) punishes “anyone who uses the emblem for perfidious purposes, in accordance with Article 37 … of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I”.
El Salvador, Emblem Law, 2000, Article 15.
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) punishes the abuse of the emblems or insignia of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun, “with intent to prepare or to commit hostile acts”.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 294.
Article 282.- Abuse of Emblems and Insignia of International Humanitarian Organizations.
is punishable with simple imprisonment, or, in cases of exceptional gravity, with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years.
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 282.
Making improper use of … the distinctive emblems provided for under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their  Additional Protocols, and thereby causing serious bodily harm to a combatant from the adverse party is a punishable offence.
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-29.
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “the perfidious use of the distinctive sign of the red cross and red crescent” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime.
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(1)(f).
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “makes improper use of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, … thereby causing a person’s death or serious injury”.
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 10(2).
Guatemala’s Emblem Law (1997) punishes “anyone who, inviting the good faith of the adversary, with the intent to induce him to believe that he is entitled to the protection conferred by international humanitarian law, uses the protective emblem [of the red cross] in a perfidious manner”.
Guatemala, Emblem Law, 1997, Article 12.
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences.
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “Making perfidious use of the distinctive red crescent or red cross emblems or any other protective emblems”.
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(14).
Anyone who intentionally has committed, or ordered to be committed, acts which cause death or serious injury to body or health of an adversary by using the emblem of the red crescent or red cross or a distinctive signal by having recourse to perfidy, has committed a war crime and shall be responsible in conformity with the legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Kyrgyzstan, Emblem Law, 2000, Article 10.
Liechtenstein’s Emblem Law (1957) punishes “whoever misuses the sign or the protection of the red cross for the preparation or the execution of hostilities”.
Liechtenstein, Emblem Law, 1957, Article 8.
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “using … the distinctive signs provided for by the Geneva Conventions, and thereby, causing loss of human lives or serious injuries” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(7).
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, it is a crime, during an international armed conflict, to commit “the following acts, when they are committed intentionally and in violation of the relevant provisions of Additional Protocol (I) and cause death or serious injury to body or health: … the perfidious use … of the distinctive emblem of the red cross or red crescent”.
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(2)(c)(vi).
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).
Any person who, intentionally and inviting the good faith of the adversary, leading him to believe that he has the right to, or the obligation to accord, the protection provided for under the rules of international humanitarian law by using the emblem of the Red Cross or of a distinctive signal in a perfidious manner, has committed, or given the order to commit, acts which cause the death or seriously injure the body or health of an adversary, shall be punished in accordance with the criminal legislation in force.
Nicaragua, Emblem Law, 2002, Article 12.
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, “using perfidiously the distinctive sign of the red cross or of the red crescent”, protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977, is a war crime.
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(16).
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than ten and not more than twenty years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she improperly uses the protective signs of the  Geneva Conventions … with the result set out in Article 33, paragraphs 16 and 17 [of the present code, namely causing serious injury or death].
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 96.
Republic of Moldova, Emblem Law, 1999, Article 17(1).
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) punishes the “perfidious use of the Red Cross emblem, as well as of the distinctive signs as protective elements during an armed conflict, provided that this has caused: a) a grave injury to body or health; b) death of a person”.
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 392.
2° imprisonment for ten (10) to twenty (20) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 6°, 7°, 8°, 10° or 12° of Article 8 of this law.
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–9.
Any person who, by utilizing the emblem of the red cross or of the red crescent or a distinctive signal thus resorting to perfidy, intentionally commits or orders to commit acts which lead to death, is to be punished with indefinite hard labour.
Senegal, Law on the Utilization and Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Emblems, 2005, Article 11.
(e) … paragraph … 3 … of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on, inter alia, the grave breach of the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37 of the Protocol, of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other protective signs recognized by the Conventions or the Protocol].
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 2(1)(e).
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “making improper use … of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury”.
anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses … in a perfidious manner the protective or distinctive signs, emblems or signals established and recognized under international treaties to which Spain is a party, in particular the distinctive signs of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 612(4).
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, removes the reference to “in a perfidious manner” from this article.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(4).
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, the misuse of emblems of medical aid (red cross) or “the killing or injuring of an opponent by means of some other form of treacherous behaviour” constitutes a crime against international law.
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6(2).
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, punishes “anyone who abuses the emblem or the protection of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun … to prepare or commit hostile acts” in time of armed conflict.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended, Article 110.
Any person who abuses the emblem or the protection of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun, [or] the emblem of the third Additional Protocol [2005 Additional Protocol III] to the  Geneva Conventions … in order to prepare or commit hostile acts is to be punished with three years’ or more imprisonment or a monetary penalty or, in less serious cases, a year imprisonment or less.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 110.
Without prejudice to more aggravated penalty in other laws, anyone who has wilfully used, or ordered the use of [the Red Crescent or the Red Cross emblem], in times of war or armed conflict with the intention to deceive the adversary and make him believe that he was entitled to receive or was obliged to confer protection provided by those emblems shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of 25 years with temporary hard labour.
Syrian Arab Republic, Emblem Law, 2005, Article 7.
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes “the perfidious use of the distinctive sign of the red cross and red crescent” in an international or internal armed conflict.
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1).
Togo, Emblem Law, 1999, Article 16.
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”.
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).
The use of the red crescent and red cross emblems, distinctive signals, designations “Red Crescent” and “Red Cross” or of signs and designations representing their imitation in commercial activities, as well as their perfidious use in armed conflict, shall not be allowed.
Uzbekistan, Emblem Law, 2004, Article 14.
Under Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998), the “perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Yemeni Red Crescent” is a war crime.
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 21(5).
Under Yemen’s Emblem Law (1999), “any person who has used the emblem, with perfidious intent, in time of war, so as to cause death or serious injury to body or health of any person, or has ordered such use, shall be punished by the sanction defined in the laws in force”.
Yemen, Emblem Law, 1999, Article 12.
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”.
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
In the Hagendorf case before the US Intermediate Military Government Court at Dachau in 1946, the accused, a German soldier, was charged with having “wrongfully used the Red Cross emblem in a combat zone by firing a weapon at American soldiers from an enemy ambulance displaying such emblem”. The accused was found guilty.
United States, Intermediate Military Government Court at Dachau, Hagendorf case, Judgment, 9 August 1946.
The CPM [Military Penal Code (1980)], in article 60, punishes … any person who, in the area of operations of a unit [and] in violation of the laws and customs of war, improperly uses the distinctive signs and emblems defined by international conventions to ensure the respect for persons, objects and places protected by these conventions.
- The Red Cross on a white ground for the medical service and religious personnel.
Article 60 of the CPM punishes more precisely the act of perfidy under international humanitarian law. The same act is punished as a war crime by the CPO [Penal Code (2009)] in article 198(2°)(g) for international armed conflicts.
Burundi, Ministry of National Defence and Former Combatants, Training Workshop on Military Criminal Law for Military Judges, November 2010, p. 16.
On the basis of replies by army officers to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Rwanda states that treachery is prohibited. According to the report, this may consist in the improper use of the signs of the red cross or red crescent. The report gives as examples of treachery the transportation of weapons and ammunition in an ambulance and the use of a hospital displaying the distinctive emblem as an ammunition dump.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Replies by army officers to a questionnaire, Chapter 2.6.
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 34.
International humanitarian law in force treats these cases in a relatively complete manner, binding non-State and State actors alike. Feigning to have protected civilian status or another protected status (e.g. member of the medical or religious personnel, …) in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary constitutes an act of perfidy contrary to international law.
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 632.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Final report, Annex VI.B, UN Doc. S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. III), 28 December 1994, § 85.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “the perfidious use of the … distinctive signs marking specifically protected persons and objects … [and of] distinctive signals used for identification of medical service” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 779(a) and (c).
ICRC, Press Release No. 1509, South Lebanon: The red cross emblem used for a bombing attack, 16 July 1985.
Anyone who has wilfully committed, or has given the order to commit, acts resulting in the death of, or causing serious injury to the body or health of, an adversary by making perfidious use of the red cross or red crescent emblem or a distinctive signal, has committed a war crime and shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of … years.
Perfidious use means appealing to the good faith of the adversary, with the intention to deceive him and make him believe that he was entitled to receive or was obliged to confer the protection provided for by the rules of international humanitarian law.
ICRC, Model Law concerning the Use and Protection of the Emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent, Article 11, IRRC, No. 313, 1996, p. 486.
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included “the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross or red crescent”, when committed in an international armed conflict, in its list of war crimes to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, § 1(b)(vi).
In 1987, an article published in the French newspaper Le Monde discussed an incident in which the counterrevolutionary forces in Nicaragua had allegedly used a helicopter bearing the emblem of the red cross to carry military supplies. The ICRC was reported in the article as stating that the red cross emblem may only be used by the medical services of the belligerent forces to provide protection for the wounded and sick and for the persons providing care for them. The use of a vehicle marked with the red cross emblem to transport soldiers, weapons or other military equipment was described in the article as “a grave breach of the rules of international humanitarian law”.
Isabelle Vichniac, Violation of the Rules of Humanitarian Law? Red Cross Warns Against Contras’ use of its Emblem for Military Purposes, Le Monde, 19 June 1987.

References: § 110
 § 111
 § 504
 § 6
 § 6
 § 13
 § 234
 § 531
 § 251
 § 341
 § 494
 § 494
 § 661
 § 20
 § 9
 § 17
 § 81
 § 79
 § 18
 § 8
 § 16
 § 10
 § 856
 § 706
 § 1608
 § 10
 § 46
 § 12
 § 4
 § 3
 § 640
 § 1209
 § 4
 § 85
 § 46
 § 241
 § 14
 § 0416
 § 611
 § 12
 § 31
 § 172
 § 83
 § 165
 § 32
 § 74
 § 34
 § 56
 § 57
 § 10
 § 9
 § 9
 § 1
 § 379
 § 2
 § 8
 § 7
 § 7
 § 16
 § 55
 § 2
 § 8
 § 3
 § 12
 § 12
 § 268
 § 1
 § 1
 § 10
 § 6
 § 28
 § 85
 § 779
 § 1