Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter32_rule97
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:15:01+00:00

Document:
The responsible authorities shall ensure that [fixed establishments and mobile medical units] are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 19, second para.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 28.
Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety.
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 12(4). Article 12 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 69.
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 51(7). Article 51 was adopted by 77 votes in favour, one against and 16 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 163.
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[u]tilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes 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)(xxiii).
Parties to the conflict are prohibited from placing or keeping members of the civilian population subject to their authority in or near military objectives, with the idea of inducing the enemy to refrain from attacking those objectives.
Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, drafted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, September 1956, submitted to governments for their consideration on behalf of the 19th International Conference of the Red Cross, New Delhi, 28 October–7 November, Res. XIII, Article 13.
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxiii), “[u]tilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes 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)(xxiii).
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides that civilians in enemy territory “are not to be used as a shield for combat operations or as a means of obtaining protection for military facilities”.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 609.
[The] requirement [to distinguish between military objects and civilian objects] imposes obligations on all parties to a conflict to establish and maintain this distinction. Inherent in this requirement, and to make it effective, is the obligation not to use civilians to protect military objectives. Civilians may not be used as shields … Any party who uses civilians in this manner violates international law including its obligations to protect its own civilian population.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 504.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 922.
5.4 … Inherent in this requirement [the principle of distinction], and to make it effective, is the obligation not to use civilians to protect military objectives. Civilians may not be used as shields … Any party who uses civilians in this manner violates international law including its obligations to protect its own civilian population.
9.23 … The civilian population shall not be used to attempt to render military objectives immune from attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations.
10.26 PW [prisoner-of-war] camps must not be located near military objectives with the intention of securing exemption from attack for those objectives.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 5.4, 9.23 and 10.26.
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. 2; see also Part I bis, p. 53.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) prohibits the use of human shields as a method of warfare.
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. 30, § 131.
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. 222, § 222; see also p. 103, § 371.
The manual, under the heading “Responsibility for Acts or Omissions of which Subordinates Are Accused”, further states that a commander may be held responsible for the “use of [human] shields” by his subordinates.
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. 99, § 361; see also p. 141, § 421 and p. 147, § 431.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides that prisoners of war or detainees “will not be used as ‘human shields’ to protect military objectives or cover military operations”.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 6, § 12.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 615.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1222.3.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states that prisoners of war or detainees “will not be used as ‘human shields’ to protect military objectives or cover military operations”.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 6, § 12.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “using protected persons to protect military objectives (human shields)” is prohibited and that to do so is a war crime.
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that parties in conflict shall “abstain from using [the civilian population] as shields or barricades in order to obtain a military advantage”. It further states that it is prohibited “to use the civilian population as human shields”.
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 22 and 30.
If the civilians do not leave the town under siege, this does not signify that the commander who directs the attack is dispensed from his duties to take all the usual precautions listed above. For all these reasons, a ceasefire allowing for evacuation seems to constitute a logical solution. Sure, violators could consider that it is in their interest to hold back the civilian population, or parts of that population, to serve as human shields, or to elicit the sympathy of international opinion regarding the humanitarian situation of the population and thereby to discredit the enemy. Nevertheless, the force leading the attack can easily thwart these proceedings by respecting the law, giving warnings, giving time for an evacuation in the form of a ceasefire, and by ensuring that the civilians are granted passage in safe conditions towards a protected zone or place.
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. 50–51.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 21.
No prisoner of war may be used to render, by his presence, certain points or areas immune from military operations.
The use of protected persons, such as civilians or prisoners of war, to shield legitimate objectives from attack is prohibited.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 31, 40 and 45, 50.
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) forbids the use of civilians or populated areas as shields for the protection of military units, movements or positions.
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, Article 47, p. 7.
According to the Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980), soldiers “cannot use prisoners as shields to defend against attacks by enemy forces”.
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. 9.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11-2.
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) prohibits the use of individual civilians or inhabited areas in order to protect military formations, movements or positions.
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, § 4.3.
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides that protected persons “cannot be used in any case as human shields”. The prohibition is also stated regarding prisoners of war.
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, pp. 3 and 5.
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. 33–34 and 101.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “None of the parties to the conflict shall use civilians as a shield to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” It also provides that POWs “shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations”.
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, §§ 506 and 714.
Civilians may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from combat operations.
The detaining power is obligated to protect prisoners of war. They may not be abused as “human shields”.
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, pp. 4 and 7.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states that it is prohibited to exploit the presence of prisoners to render military objectives immune from attack and it is obligatory to provide the prisoners with bomb shelters as well as other means of defence.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 52 and 57.
In the rules of war, there is a serious prohibition on the use of civilians as human shields, that is to say, it is prohibited to scatter military targets among civilian installations in an attempt to prevent an attack on them.
The manual further states that “[t]he presence of prisoners of war must not be used for the ‘protection’ of military targets from attack”.
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, § 41(c).
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 2.
It is prohibited to force civilians to shield military operations or take advantage of the movement of civilians to shield military operations. This rule must be interpreted with common sense. For example, it does not prevent a military commander from defending a city, and the difficulties faced by a commander operating in a populated area, particularly in a siege situation, when room for manoeuvre is limited, should be taken into account.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 26.f; see also § 26.g.(3).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 60.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.e.(10).
The manual provides that war crimes include “subjecting the civilian population to attack (human shield)”.
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.(5).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 27(f), p. 236.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 61, p. 264.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(e)(3), p. 239.
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(a)(5), p. 248.
It is prohibited by resorting to perfidy to use the movement of medical units and transports, civilians and prisoners of war or use their presence to shield the movement (manoeuvre) of military units or protect any areas (military objectives) when conducting combat operations.
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) prohibits the use of civilians and prisoners of war as human shields.
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, pp. 36 and 43.
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, § 2.3.b.(4).
The manual further states that civilians and civilian goods or protected persons and goods may suffer from the effects of an attack against a proper military object due to their proximity to it and when their presence shields the latter from attacks.
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, § 4.4.e.
The manual also states that combatants must position their weapons in the field in order to avoid the use of the civilian population as a shield.
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, § 7.3.a.(1).
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, § 2.3.b.(4); see also § 4.4.e.
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, § 3.3.b.(4); see also § 5.3.c.
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, § 7.3.a.(1).
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 151(1).
In the past prominent inhabitants were placed on engines of trains running on the lines of communication in occupied territories to ensure the safety of the trains. Such a measure exposed innocent inhabitants to the illegitimate acts of train wrecking by private enemy individuals, and also to the lawful operations of raiding parties of the armed forces of the belligerent. It now comes within the prohibition of the [1949 Geneva Convention IV].
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 548 and 651.
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that civilians “may not be used to shield military operations”.
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, Annex A, p. 48, § 20.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.22; see also § 9.24.
Recent armed conflicts have been blighted by the use of “human shields” to protect military installations from attack and by the practice known as “ethnic cleansing” when people of a certain racial origin or religious beliefs have been murdered or expelled from their homes, which have been destroyed. These practices violate the basic law of armed conflict principles of targeting, discrimination and humane treatment of those hors de combat as well as the basic human rights law principles of non discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds and in freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. They are likely to be war crimes. Depending on the circumstances, these practices may also amount to crimes against humanity or even genocide.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.14.2.
Penalty: (a) if the conduct results in the death of any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a)—imprisonment for life; or (b) otherwise—imprisonment for 17 years.
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.65, p. 344.
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “using protected persons as shields” in international armed conflicts.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.65.
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that in international and non-international armed conflicts, using prisoners of war “as a shield in the hostilities” is prohibited.
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 21(3).
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that using protected persons “for the protection of one’s own Armed Forces or military objectives from military actions” is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that using persons who have laid down their arms or who are defenceless, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, medical and religious personnel, prisoners of war, the civilian population in an occupied territory or in the conflict zone or other persons enjoying international protection as a cover for one’s own troops and objects against the effects of hostilities is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
v) utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(v).
23°. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(23°).
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that it is a war crime to “order civilians and other protected persons to be used to shield certain places, areas or military forces from military operations”.
Under the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended, the use of prisoners of war or of civilians as a method of protection is an offence.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice as amended, 1972, Article 524.
The use of prisoners of war or civilians for purposes of protection against the enemy is punished with fifteen to twenty years of penal servitude.
In time of war or during exceptional circumstances the perpetrator is punished by death.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 172.
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “uses civilians or other protected persons in order to protect military targets … or uses other means of warfare prohibited in international law” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”.
Using a person protected by the international law of armed conflict with the aim of deterring certain points, zones or military forces from being targeted by military operations, is punishable by 20 years’ imprisonment.
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-19.
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides for the punishment of anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “uses a person who is to be protected under international humanitarian law as a shield to restrain a hostile party from undertaking operations of war against certain targets”.
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 11(1)(4).
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), the “use of civilians to cover the troops or objects from the hostilities” is a crime.
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(b).
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts: “Utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”.
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(W).
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 19 of the Geneva Convention I, Article 23 of the Geneva Convention III and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Articles 12(4) and 51(7), are punishable offences.
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the “use of civilians or prisoners of war as a living shield in military operations” is an offence.
Mali’s Penal Code (2001) provides that “using the presence of a civilian person or other protected person in order to avoid that certain zones, points or military forces become a target for military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(23).
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 106(d).
Under Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980), the “use of prisoners of war as … human shields” constitutes a violation of the law of nations.
Peru’s Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) prohibits “the use of internally displaced persons or their property for the purpose of protecting military objectives”.
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 6(h).
4. Uses persons protected by international humanitarian law as shields for the benefit of military operations against the enemy or to impede enemy operations against certain objectives.
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 95(4).
4. Uses persons protected under International Humanitarian Law as shields for the benefit of belligerent operations against the adversary or in order to impede the adversary’s acts against certain objects.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(4).
1. In an international armed conflict, the persons protected by the Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV of 12 August 1949 [and] Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977.
2. In a non-international armed conflict, the persons who benefit from protection under Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and, where relevant, the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977.
3. In international and non-international armed conflicts, members of the armed forces and persons who directly participate in hostilities who have laid down their arms or for any other reason find themselves defenceless.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 75.
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of any person who, in violation of international law, uses persons hors de combat, protected persons and persons enjoying international protection to “shield with their presence an area or an object or his own troops from attack”.
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 123(2).
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who, in both international and non-international armed conflicts, commits the war crime of “[u]sing a person who is to be protected under international humanitarian law as a shield to restrain a hostile party from undertaking operations of war against certain targets”.
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(4).
20. utilizing the presence of a civilian or [other] protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(20).
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”.
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(xxiii).
4. … [U]sing protected persons to shield points, zones or military forces from enemy attacks.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 611(4).
b. uses a person protected by international humanitarian law as a human shield in order to influence combat operations.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112c (1)(b).
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264g (1)(b).
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes the “use of [protected persons] to cover the troops or objects from hostilities”.
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Under Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998), the “use of civilians as human shields during war operations” constitutes a war crime.
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 21(4).
 Ribic appeals his convictions. … I would dismiss the appeal.
[T]here was no evidence at trial capable of leaving the jury with a reasonable doubt that using unarmed peacekeeping observers as human shields in the hope of averting or stopping an air strike was a reasonable response to NATO’s action. On the evidence, all that was required to avoid the bombings, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 836, was the return of the heavy weapons that had been removed by the Serbian army from the UN weapons collection areas by the designated deadline and the honouring of the safe zones. That the Serbian forces elected to reject this option did not render the use of human shields a justified and reasonable response to the NATO bombing.
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ribic case, Judgment, 24 November 2008, § 57, per Cronk J.A.
Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Peters case, Record of an Admissibility Hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 29 January 2013, pp. 4 and 13–14.
Taking into account … the development of customary international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflicts, the Constitutional Court notes that the fundamental guarantees stemming from the principle of humanity, some of which have attained ius cogens status, … [include] the prohibition of using human shields.
- the 49-year-old Rwandese national Straton M.
The accused Dr. Ignace M. has been president of the FDLR since December 2001. The accused Straton M. has been its first vice president since June 2004. Until their arrest in Germany on 17 November 2009, both accused steered the FDLR’s conduct, strategies and tactics from Germany together with Calixte M., who is residing in France and who has since been detained by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Thus, they could have prevented the systematic commission of violent acts against the civilian population by the FDLR’s militiamen, which were part of the organisation’s strategy. Specifically, the accused are responsible for 26 crimes against humanity and 39 war crimes, which the militiamen under their control committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo between January 2009 and 17 November 2009. These crimes inter alia include … using civilians as human shields against attacks by military opponents.
Germany, Federal Prosecutor General, Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda case, Press release, 17 December 2010.
[I]t is clear that an army … is not permitted to use local residents as a “human shield” (see article 28 of IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention); article 51(7) of The First Protocol [1977 Additional Protocol I]; see also Fleck, at p. 218)). Pictet correctly noted that the use of people as a “human shield” is a “cruel and barbaric” act (see J. Pictet Commentary IV Geneva Convention (1958) 208; rule 97 of International Humanitarian Law).
Israel, High Court of Justice, Adalah (Early Warning Procedure) case, Judgment, 6 October 2005, § 21.
What is the law regarding civilians serving as a “human shield” for terrorists taking a direct part in the hostilities? Certainly, if they are doing so because they were forced to do so by terrorists, those innocent civilians are not to be seen as taking a direct part in the hostilities. They themselves are victims of terrorism. However, if they do so of their own free will, out of support for the terrorist organization, they should be seen as persons taking a direct part in the hostilities (see Schmitt, at p. 521 and Michael N. Schmitt, Humanitarian Law and Direct Participation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees, 5 CHICAGO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 511, 541 (2004)).
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 36.
In its judgment in the Student case in 1946, the UK Military Court at Lüneberg found the accused guilty of using six British prisoners of war as a screen for the advance of German troops, which resulted in the deaths of some of the prisoners.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Lüneberg, In re Student, Judgment, 10 May 1946.
31. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces or combatants immune from military operations or armed combat.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.31.
In 1996, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Liberia, the representative of Chile said that he especially regretted the “unfortunate recurrence, in a United Nations peacekeeping operation, of the use of human shields, as a result of the fighting in Tubmanburg and Kle”.
Chile, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3621, 25 January 1996, p. 18.
The Report on the Practice of Croatia refers to a communiqué of the Ministry of Defence in 1995 which stated that the Croatian authorities had taken into custody and prosecuted the commander of a small Croatian military unit because of his alleged use of seven Danish UN peacekeepers as human shields during the August 1995 military operations.
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 1.7, referring to Communiqué of the Ministry of Defence, 10 August 1995.
In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading “[O]ffences related to violations of humanitarian law”, listed “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”.
In a communiqué issued in August 1990, El Salvador vigorously condemned Iraq’s actions on the basis of IHL, in particular Iraq’s violation of the rule prohibiting the taking and use of hostages and the denial of an individual’s basic rights to liberty and freedom of transit.
El Salvador, Communiqué concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, annexed to Letter dated 30 August 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21708, 5 September 1990.
The Report on the Practice of France refers to various statements in which the French President, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have condemned the use of civilians, prisoners of war and members of peacekeeping operations as human shields.
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 1.7, referring to Message of the President to Parliament, 27 August 1990, Politique étrangère de la France, August 1990, p. 105; Communiqué of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 January 1991, Annuaire français de droit international, Vol. 37, 1991, p. 1019; Prime Minister, Answer to questions in Parliament regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, 31 May 1995, Politique étrangère de la France, May 1995, pp. 81–82; Minister of Foreign Affairs, Declaration before Parliament, 6 June 1995, Politique étrangère de la France, June 1995, p. 99; and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Declaration before the Senate, 7 June 1995, Politique étrangère de la France, June 1995, p. 106.
In an address to Parliament in 1990, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs stated with respect to EU nationals detained in Kuwait and Iraq that “it is particularly abominable that they will be placed around military defence objects” and that such practice constituted a “breach of international law and rules governing civilized behaviour”.
Germany, Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 23 August 1990, Bulletin, No. 102, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 25 August 1990, p. 858.
10. Which information does the Federal Government have concerning the question of whether armed Palestinian groups in Gaza intentionally abused civilians as human shields, thereby risking their death?
The Federal Government does not have reliable information on the use of civilians as human shields by Palestinian groups. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas on earth. Qassam rockets are regularly fired from the vicinity of residential areas.
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Jürgen Trittin, other Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 16/12673, 20 April 2009, p. 5.
I believe that an independent review should consider the allegations of serious breaches of international humanitarian law in the course of the conflict, including … the use of civilians as human shields by the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam].
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Foreign Conflicts (3), Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 690 No. 1, 23 September 2009.
The Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran notes that no instances were found in which the civilian population or objects were used as human shields by the Iranian authorities.
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strictly prohibit the use of civilians to render certain points, areas or personnel immune from military operations. The report expresses regret that Israel’s opponents do not always respect this obligation.
Should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent placing innocent civilians at risk.
But callous disregard of those who hide behind civilians does not absolve the state seeking to respond to such attacks of the responsibility to avoid or at least minimize injury to civilians and their property in the course of its operations.
In the course of the conflict that it had initiated, Hizbullah’s operations entailed fundamental violations of international humanitarian law. Most specifically, it wilfully violated the principle of distinction, which obliges parties to a conflict to direct their attacks only against military objectives and prohibits the use of civilians as “human shields” in the arena of combat. Throughout the conflict, Hizbullah demonstrated cynical disregard for the lives of civilians, both on the Israeli side, where it targeted them, and on the Lebanese side, where it used them as “cover”.
However, it is the IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces’] position that the callous disregard of those who hide behind civilians does not absolve the state seeking to respond to such attacks of the responsibility to avoid or at least minimize injury to civilians and their property in the course of its operations.
Israel, Israel’s War with Hizbullah. Preserving Humanitarian Principles While Combating Terrorism, Diplomatic Notes No. 1, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, April 2007, pp. 4 and 10–11.
118. Violation of this obligation, which is a core principle of customary international law binding on both States and non-State actors, constitutes a “war crime”.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, §§ 117–118.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 226; see also § 227.
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “the standing orders of the Gaza Operation explicitly prohibited the use of civilians as human shields … in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict and a Supreme Court ruling on the matter”.
The Ministry further stated: “The MAG [Military Advocate General] has directly referred for criminal investigation all allegations that civilians were used by IDF [Israel Defense Forces] forces as human shields”.
In January 1991, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Italy warned Iraq in the strongest terms against carrying out its alleged intention to move prisoners of war to strategic sites, and recalled Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III.
Italy, Letter dated 23 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22137, 23 January 1991.
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, Jordan has never used civilians as shields to protect areas or installations from enemy attacks.
In January 1991, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Kuwait denounced Iraq’s announcement that prisoners of war were to be sent to various economic and scientific installations to serve as human shields. The letter stated that such inhuman practices were in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV.
Kuwait, Letter dated 22 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22128, 22 January 1991.
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait notes that the use of human shields by Iraq to protect certain strategic sites was condemned by Kuwait.
On the basis of interviews with members of the armed forces, the Report on the Practice of Malaysia states that during the communist insurgency, civilians were never used as human shields.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Interviews with members of the armed forces, Chapter 1.7.
According to the records published by the Directorate of Legal Services of the Nigerian army, cited in the Report on the Practice of Nigeria, Nigerian practice does not allow the use of human shields.
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 1.7, referring to Records of the Directorate of Legal Services of the Nigerian army.
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda includes several examples of the use of civilians as human shields by combatants of the former government during the hostilities in Kigali in 1994. On the basis of a statement of the Rwandan Minister of Justice at the 53rd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights condemning the use of the civilian population as human shields during hostilities, the report considers that it is the opinio juris of Rwanda that the use of human shields in combat is prohibited.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
20. … In 1996 the country … moved to liberate innocent refugees who the Ex-FAR/Interahamwe cynically exploited as human shields.
Rwanda, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Official Government of Rwanda Comments on the Draft UN Mapping Report on the DRC, 30 November 2010, §§ 19 and 20.
In the Great Lakes region … we unfortunately still have armed conflicts and roaming predators against the civilian population. The negative forces and other military groups, such as the Rwanda Defence Force, a genocidal force that consists of perpetrators of the 1994 genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda, continues to spread its genocidal ideological poison, not just in our neighbourhood but also through a worldwide network. Other groups, such as the Lord’s Resistance Army and uncontrolled Séléka Coalition elements, continue to traumatize the population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic.
Those forces use civilians as human shields, abduct and maim, forcefully recruit children and continue to carry out sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls. Such genocidal ideologies and inhuman acts should not be accommodated anywhere in the world.
Rwanda, Statement by the Political Coordinator of Rwanda before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/PV.7019, 19 August 2013, p. 20.
Iraq has … used prisoners of war as human shields, in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Deeply shocked and angered, the Government of Senegal has condemned this inhumane policy which runs counter to law.
Senegal, Statement by the President, annexed to Letter dated 29 January 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/22181, 31 January 1991, §§ 5–6.
The Report on the Practice of Spain cites several occasions in 1990 and 1991 when the Spanish Government condemned Iraq for its use of human shields.
Report on the Practice of Spain, 1998, Chapter 1.7, referring to Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs before Congress, 28 August 1990 and Press Conference by the Prime Minister on the Gulf War, 15 February 1991, Interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a magazine, January/February 1991.
Switzerland’s Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Strategy (2009) states that “the weaker of the adversaries frequently resort to practices that are prohibited under international law, e.g. … the use of human shields”.
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Strategy, 2009, p. 3.
In 2010, in its Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated: “The use of human shields also constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian lawˮ.
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.3, p. 12; see also Section 3.4, pp. 13–14.
In a statement in February 1996, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan denounced the opposition’s use of prisoners as human shields. According to the statement, opposition forces hid behind a “living shield” of members of government forces, compelling the command of the armed forces of Tajikistan to abandon positions in order to avoid unjustified loss of life among military personnel. Such practice was qualified as a flagrant violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Tajikistan, Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, annexed to Letter dated 9 January 1996 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1996/95, 8 February 1996.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 6 September 1990, Vol. 177, col. 739.
In an emergency debate in the House of Lords at the time of the Gulf crisis in 1990, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, declared that he was shocked by the Iraqi Government’s decision to use human shields, such practice being “abhorrent and a further breach of humanitarian law”.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 6 September 1990, Vol. 521, col. 1798.
In 1990, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom described Iraq’s illegal practices of using human shields as “acts which outrage international law and international opinion”.
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2937, 18 August 1990, p. 21.
United Kingdom, Letter to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22117, 21 January 1991.
had raised press reports concerning the detention of POWs at strategic sites [and] had made it clear that if Iraq did this it would be an outrageous breach of the Geneva Conventions. The British Government would take the gravest view of any such breach. He also reminded the Iraqi Ambassador of the personal liability of those individuals who broke the Convention in this way.
United Kingdom, Statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson, 21 January 1991, BYIL, Vol. 62, 1991, p. 680.
There has been a reported threat to use captured airmen as human shields. Such action would be inhuman, illegal and totally contrary to the third Geneva convention. The convention expressly … prohibits the sending of a prisoner of war to an area where he may be exposed to fire, or his detention there, and forbids the use of the presence of prisoners of war to render points or areas immune from military operations. There is no doubt about Iraq’s obligations under the Geneva convention.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 21 January 1991, Vol. 184, col. 27.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 18 December 2008, Vol. 485, Debates, cols. 1349–1350.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written Answer by a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 19 October 2010, Vol. 504, Written Answers, col. WA157.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Ministry of Defence, Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia, 10 July 1991, § 1(iv).
8. Condemns all acts of exploitation of unaccompanied refugee minors, including their use as soldiers or human shields in armed conflict and their forced recruitment into military forces, and any other acts that endanger their safety and personal security.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/150, 22 December 2003, §§ 7–8, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the use of human shields by Iraq as an extremely serious violation of international law.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/71, 5 March 1992, § 2(d), voting record: 35-1-16.
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Commission on Human Rights vigorously condemned the use of civilians as human shields on the front line in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/89, 8 March 1995, § 3, voting record: 44-0-7.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned “the use of Palestinian citizens as human shields during Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/6, 15 April 2003, § 9, voting record: 33-5-15.
9. Strongly condemns once more … the use of Palestinian citizens as human shields during Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/10, 15 April 2004, preamble and § 9, voting record: 31-7-15.
In 1996, the UN Secretary-General reported that during the conflict in Liberia, UNOMIL was charged with carrying out investigations of major violations of human rights. In this context, UNOMIL confirmed that, during fighting in Tubmanburg on 30 December 1995, ULIMO-J fighters forced civilians out of the government hospital, where they had taken refuge, and used them as human shields to protect their position in the town. In addition, fighters generally prevented civilians from fleeing the town.
UN Secretary-General, Fifteenth progress report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/47, 23 January 1996, § 24.
UN Secretary-General, First progress report on the UNOMSIL, UN Doc. S/1998/750, 12 August 1998, §§ 33 and 36.
No principle is more central to the humanitarian law of war than the obligation to respect the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. That principle is violated and criminal responsibility thereby incurred when organizations deliberately target civilians or when they use civilians as shields or otherwise demonstrate a wanton indifference to the protection of non-combatants.
The report went on to say that central principles such as this one were clearly a part of contemporary customary international law and were applicable as soon as “political ends are sought through military means”.
Report pursuant to paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 837 (1993) on the investigation into the 5 June 1993 attack on United Nations forces in Somalia conducted on behalf of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/26351, 24 August 1993, Annex, §§ 8–9.
In 1993, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights described how civilian detainees were used as human shields to protect the army’s advance. According to the report, these civilian detainees were arrested and drafted into the army and forced to dig shelters on the front line. On 14 August 1993, the Special Rapporteur wrote to the government to express his abhorrence of this practice. The Special Rapporteur also reported that the Bosnian Serbs used civilian detainees as human shields, forcing them to stand as a “living wall” on the front.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, §§ 36, 37, 39 and 84.
In a resolution adopted in 1991 in the context of the Gulf War, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly warned Iraq against the criminal use of prisoners of war as human shields in strategic sites, flagrantly violating the 1949 Geneva Convention III.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 954, 29 January 1991, § 5.
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation of women and children in the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly urged governments of the member and non-member States grouped together in the Council of Europe “to undertake to protect children from the scourge of war and to condemn the barbaric practice in recent armed conflicts of using women and children as … human shields”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1011, 28 September 1993, § 7(iii).
In 1993, in a report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly considered “prisoners being ferried to the front line, for example for use as a human shield” as a war crime.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, Doc. 6740, 19 January 1993, p. 19.
In a declaration issued in August 1990, the 12 EC member States stated that the use of civilians as human shields was “particularly heinous as well as taken in contempt of the law of basic humanitarian principles”.
European Community, Declaration on the situation of foreigners in Iraq and Kuwait, Paris, 21 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 22 August 1990 from Italy to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/433-S/21590, 22 August 1990, § 2.
In 1990, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, Italy stated on behalf of the EC that Iraq’s “decision to use certain foreign nationals as a human shield was illegal and morally repugnant”.
European Community, Statement by Italy on behalf of the EC before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/45/SR.3, 8 October 1990, § 42.
their deep concern at the unscrupulous use of prisoners of war and at the intention announced by Iraq to concentrate them near military bases and targets. They consider these actions particularly odious because they are contrary to elementary respect for international law and humanitarian principles. They condemn these actions unreservedly.
European Community, Statement on the situation of prisoners of war, annexed to Letter dated 23 January 1991 from Luxembourg to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/940-S/22140, 23 January 1991, p. 2.
In a declaration on the Gulf crisis adopted in November 1990, the European Council denounced “the practice of holding foreign nationals as hostages and keeping some of them in strategic sites”.
European Community, Declaration on the Gulf crisis, annexed to Letter dated 30 October 1990 from Italy to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/700-S/21920, 1 November 1990, § 3.
the Iraqi authorities to meet their established international obligations towards third-country nationals by providing them with appropriate protection, ensuring the safety of their lives and property and safeguarding them from the dangers of exposure to military operations.
Gulf Cooperation Council, Ministerial Council, 36th Session, Jeddah, 5–6 September 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 6 September 1990 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21719, 6 September 1990, p. 4.
In a resolution adopted in August 1990, the League of Arab States Council urged the Iraqi authorities to preserve foreign civilians from the dangers of exposure to military operations.
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5039, The detention by Iraq of nationals of third countries, 31 August 1990, § 2.
Nordic Foreign Ministers, Declaration on the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, Molde, 12 September 1990, annexed to Letter dated 12 September 1990 from Norway to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21751, 13 September 1990, § 6.
The Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 stated that the participants refused to accept that “civilian populations should become more and more frequently the principal victims of hostilities and acts of violence perpetrated in the course of armed conflicts, for example where they are … used as human shields”.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I (3), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 298.
In the Karadžić and Mladić case before the ICTY in 1995, the accused were charged with grave breaches and violations of the laws and customs of war for having seized UN peacekeepers in the Pale area, having selected some of these hostages to use as “human shields” and having physically secured or otherwise held the peacekeepers against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a nearby communications centre in order to render these locations immune from further NATO air strikes.
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, First Indictment, 24 July 1995, Counts 15–16.
In its review of the indictment in 1996, the ICTY Trial Chamber upheld the charges and stated that these acts could “be characterised as war crimes (taking UNPROFOR soldiers as hostages and using them as human shields)”. The Trial Chamber noted that civilians were used as human shields against other troops.
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Review of the Indictments, 11 July 1996, §§ 13 and 89.
[A]t great risk to their lives, [they were forced] to perform various dangerous military support tasks benefiting the HV and HVO; including: digging trenches, building defences with sandbags, carrying wounded or killed HV or HVO soldiers, carrying ammunition and explosives across the confrontation line, and placing them in front of ABiH positions. These tasks were often performed by detainees, under conditions which exposed them directly to hostile fire, and thereby served the purpose of protecting HVO soldiers. Consequently, the detainees were turned into human shields.
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Second Amended Indictment, 16 October 2001, § 37, Counts 2, 3 and 4.
The Trial Chamber subsequently found the second defendant, Vinko Martinović, guilty of inhumane acts, inhuman treatment and cruel treatment under Articles 2(b), 3, 5(i) and 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute.
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, §334.
Naletilić and Martinović were sentenced to 20 years’ and 18 years’ imprisonment respectively.
The Appeals Chamber subsequently affirmed the sentences of both Naletilić and Martinović.
653. The use of prisoners of war or civilian detainees as human shields is therefore prohibited by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and it may constitute inhuman or cruel treatment under Articles 2 and 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute respectively where the other elements of these crimes are met.
654. … [A] factual finding that the Hotel Vitez was actually being shelled at all on 20 April is not required in order to establish that detainees were unlawfully being used as human shields in anticipation of such shelling, contrary to the submission of the Appellant. Using protected detainees as human shields constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions regardless of whether those human shields were actually attacked or harmed. Indeed, the prohibition is designed to protect detainees from being exposed to the risk of harm, and not only to the harm itself. To the extent that the Trial Chamber considered the intensity of the shelling of Vitez on 20 April 1993, that consideration was superfluous to an analysis of a breach of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, but may be relevant to whether the use of the protected detainees as human shields amounts to inhuman treatment for the purposes of Article 2 of the Statute.
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment on Appeal, 29 July 2004, §§ 652–654.
The Committee has noted that the right to life has been too often narrowly interpreted. The expression ‘inherent right to life’ cannot properly be understood in a restrictive manner, and the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6 (Article 6 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 30 July 1982, § 5.
The Committee is concerned about the IDF [Israel Defense Forces’] practice in the Occupied Territories of using local residents as “volunteers” or shields during military operations, especially in order to search houses and to help secure the surrender of those identified by the State party as terrorist suspects.
The State party should discontinue this practice, which often results in the arbitrary deprivation of life (art. 6 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, § 17.
The national armed forces are participants in the civil war and there have been several instances in which the Government has failed to intervene to prevent the assassination and killing of specific individuals. Even where it cannot be proved that violations were committed by government agents, the government had a responsibility to secure the safety and the liberty of its citizens, and to conduct investigations into murders. Chad therefore is responsible for the violations of the [1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights].
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés v. Chad, Judgment, 2 October 1995, § 22.
The text of Article 2 [of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights], read as a whole, demonstrates that it covers not only intentional killing, but also the situations where it is permitted to use force which may result, as an unintended outcome, in the deprivation of life. Article 2 may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual for whom they are responsible.
European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, Judgment, 21 November 2000, § 41.
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia not “to misuse civilians for military operations”.

References: § 609
 § 504
 § 922
 § 131
 § 222
 § 371
 § 361
 § 421
 § 431
 § 12
 § 615
 § 1222
 § 12
 § 11
 § 4
 § 41
 § 26
 § 26
 § 60
 § 27
 § 31
 § 27
 § 61
 § 28
 § 32
 § 2
 § 4
 § 7
 § 2
 § 4
 § 3
 § 5
 § 7
 § 20
 § 5
 § 9
 § 15
 § 268
 § 268
 § 11
 § 106
 § 57
 § 21
 § 36
 § 226
 § 227
 § 1
 § 2
 § 3
 § 9
 § 9
 § 24
 § 5
 § 7
 § 2
 § 42
 § 3
 § 2
 § 6
 § 37
 §334
 § 5
 § 17
 v. 
 § 22
 v. 
 § 41