Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule47_sectionb
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:43:12+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning the use of the white flag of truce, see Rule 58 and Rule 66, Section B.
Article 23(c) of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides that it is especially prohibited “to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”.
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 23(c).
Article 23(c) of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides that it is especially forbidden “to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”.
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 23(c).
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 41. Article 41 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 104.
c) and abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
1. A person who is recognized or should, under the circumstances, be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.
and in any case, provided that he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Eventually, however, this draft article was rejected in the plenary by 22 votes in favour, 15 against and 42 abstentions.
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vi) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[k]illing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” 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)(vi).
Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly disabled, or kills such an enemy … shall suffer death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, or is an enemy captured after having committed his misdeed.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 71.
Article 13(c) of the 1874 Brussels Declaration states that “[m]urder of an enemy who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion” is “especially ‘forbidden’”.
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874. Article 13(c).
The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 9(b).
Article 17(1) of the 1913 Oxford Manual of Naval War states that it is forbidden “[t]o kill or to wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”.
The Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations between Belligerents, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 August 1913, Article 17(1).
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(vi), “killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” 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)(vi).
Military members who abandon a sinking ship should not be attacked unless they show hostile intent or are armed and so close to shore as to be capable of completing their military mission. If their conduct suggests a desire to surrender, this must be accepted.
Combatants become protected when incapacitated, sick, wounded or shipwrecked to the extent that they are incapable of fighting.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, §§ 413, 414, 416 and 621.
The following examples constitute grave breaches or serious war crimes likely to warrant institution of criminal proceedings: … making PW [prisoners of war] or the sick and wounded the object of attack; … denying an enemy the right to surrender.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1305(i) and (o).
Combatants who are unable to continue hostile action and refrain from attempting to do so must be treated in the same fashion as noncombatants. Prisoners of war, military personnel who are surrendering or attempting to surrender, and those who are wounded or sick must not be attacked. The basic principle is that any person who is hors de combat, whether by choice or circumstance, is entitled to be treated as a noncombatant provided they refrain from any further participation in hostilities.
c. abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Australia, Defence Force Manual, 1994, §§ 518 and 707; see also §§ 519 and 836 (prohibition to kill or wound an enemy who surrenders in air warfare) and § 839 (prohibition to fire upon shipwrecked personnel in air warfare).
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1315(i) and (o).
PW [prisoners of war], military personnel who are surrendering or attempting to surrender, and those who are wounded or sick must not be attacked. The basic principle is that any combatant who is hors de combat, whether by choice or circumstance, is entitled to be treated as a PW provided they refrain from any further participation in hostilities.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 5.19; see also §§ 5.20 and 10.1.
• has been rendered unconscious, or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore incapable of defending himself.
Provided that person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
7.9 Other persons who are not taking a direct part in hostilities are also considered to be out of combat. Those persons include medical personnel, chaplains and any person parachuting from an aircraft in distress.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 7.8–7.9.
8.40 … Surrenders in air combat are rarely offered. Nevertheless, actions or signals that suggest surrender should be respected. The surrendered aircraft should then be escorted to a suitable landing place.
8.41 Although relatively rare, surrenders by defecting enemy aircrew of military aircraft do offer valuable intelligence and psychological opportunities, and should be encouraged.
8.42 … If an aircraft in distress is clearly hors de combat from the information known to the attacking force at the time, then its destruction offers no military advantage, and the attack should be broken off to permit possible evacuation by crew or passengers. If the aircraft is a support or civil aircraft it is particularly important that this rule be observed.
8.43 Aircraft may not open fire on any personnel who have indicated an intention to surrender. This applies to ships as well as land forces. Additionally, aircraft may not fire upon shipwrecked personnel, including those who may have parachuted into the sea or otherwise come from downed aircraft, so long as the personnel have not been picked up. These rules do not alter the fact that any attempt by the enemy to recover downed crew may be opposed.
8.53 If the crew of a disabled aircraft … [are] in a raft or similar craft at sea after parachuting, they are to be treated as if shipwrecked and may not be attacked.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 8.40–8.43. and 8.53.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 13.26 and 13.29.
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 4; see also Fascicule I, p. 16 and Fascicule II, p. 18.
The manual also provides: “Any person recognized, or who should be recognized, as not being able to participate any longer in combat shall not be attacked (for example: in case of surrender, wounds, … shipwreck …).” It specifies that an intention to surrender must be clearly expressed and gives a few examples, such as raising hands, laying down arms and waving a white flag.
The Instructions to the Muslim Fighter (1993) issued by the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1993 state that it is “left to the military command’s discretion to decide whether it is more useful or in the general interest to free, exchange or liquidate enemy prisoners of war”.
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 57; see also Part I bis, pp. 68 and 83.
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. 26; see also Part I bis, pp. 55 and 83.
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
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, § 132.
– display the white flag of parlementaires.
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. 32, § 132.22.
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. 96, § II.
An enemy hors de combat can be defined as a combatant who … is unable to pursue combat by virtue of his capture, rendition, wounding or sickness. … [S]uch a person is not to be killed …, provided that he does not manifest any hostile intentions.
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. 183, § 493.A.
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. 31; see also pp. 51, 77, p. 103, § 372, p. 107, p. 147, §§ 431–432 and p. 149, § 432.
The manual further states: “It is prohibited … to fire on, wound or kill an enemy combatant who surrenders or is captured”.
- display a white flag.
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, pp. 104–105, § 342; see also p. 149, § 432.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 35, § 141; see also p. 81, § 331 and p. 323.
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. 117, § 392; see also p. 122, § 405 and p. 164, § 463.
The manual further states that in naval operations, “bombardment must cease if there is a manifest intention of the adversary to surrender”.
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. 258, § 613.
… In addition [to its use as the flag of parlementaires], the white flag is the symbol of the surrender of troops and engages the adversary to respect immediately the ceasefire rules; from that moment, the persons who surrender must receive the application of the provisions relative to prisoners of war.
- to refuse an unconditional surrender or to declare that no quarter will be given.
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Articles 30 and 32.
It is prohibited to attack a combatant who is, or should be recognized as being, hors de combat (out of combat).
provided that in any of these cases this person abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, §§ 16 and 17 (land warfare); see also pp. 3-2 and 3-3, §§ 17 and 18, p. 4-5, §§ 42 and 43 and p. 7-3, §§ 21 and 22 (air warfare).
The manual also states that “killing or wounding an enemy who, having laid down his arms or no longer having a means of defence, has surrendered” constitutes a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 20(c).
Likewise, “firing upon shipwrecked personnel” is a war crime “recognized by the LOAC”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, pp. 16-3 and 16-4, § 21(f).
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 5.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 5, §§ 2 and 3.
Members of opposing forces who have been rendered unconscious or are otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore are incapable of defending themselves, shall not be made the object of attack provided that they abstain from any hostile act.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 7, § 2.
provided that in any of these cases the individual abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 309.1.
provided that in any of these cases the combatant abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
1. All the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to whichever party they belong, shall be respected and protected and shall not be attacked.
2. The “wounded” and “sick” mean persons, whether military or civilian who, because of trauma, disease or other physical or mental disorder or disability, are in need of medical assistance or care. The wounded and sick are protected so long as they refrain from any act of hostility.
3. “Shipwrecked” means persons, whether military or civilian, who are in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of misfortune affecting them or the vessel or aircraft carrying them. The shipwrecked are protected so long as they refrain from any act of hostility.
1. PWs [prisoners of war] must be protected and shall not be attacked so long as they refrain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 433.2, 434, 435.1–3 and 436.
2. It is prohibited to attack a combatant who is, or should be recognized as being, hors de combat (out of combat).
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 608.2–3.
provided that in any of these cases such combatant abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 707.2–3.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “killing or wounding an enemy who, having laid down his arms or no longer having a means of defence, has surrendered” constitutes a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.2.d.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.3.f.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 5.
Those who surrender and who are no longer a threat must be protected and treated humanely. The “denial of quarter” is prohibited. In other words, it is unlawful to refuse to accept someone’s surrender or to order that no PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees will be taken. It is also illegal as well as operationally unsound to make threats to opposing forces that no PWs or detainees will be taken.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 5, § 3.
Members of opposing forces who have been rendered unconscious or are otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore are incapable of defending themselves shall not be made the object of attack provided that they abstain from any hostile act.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 7, § 2.
In Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders), the manual states: “It is forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who has surrendered”.
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter I, Fundamental Rules, § 2; see also Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section I.
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter V, Section II, § 4.
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section III, § 3.1.
Volume 2 also states: “Captured combatants (whether they have surrendered or not) … may not be attacked. … [They] must be: … protected”.
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section I–II, § 2.1.
- commit violence to life and person of the sick, wounded, shipwrecked, as well as of prisoners and civilians.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) prohibits attacks against “the wounded and sick, the shipwrecked [and] prisoners of war”.
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. 26: see also pp. 36, 87 and 88.
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. 87; see also pp. 36 and 47.
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. 37; see also p. 59.
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
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. 5 and 27; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre II: Instruction du gradé et du cadre, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 18; 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, p. 39; 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, p. 65.
- who has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself, provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
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, p. 21.
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) and Soldiers’ Manual (1992) instruct soldiers to spare captured enemy combatants.
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 46; Rules of Conduct for Soldiers, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, p. 4.
A combatant who is recognized (or should be recognized) as being out of combat (surrendering, wounded, shipwrecked in water …) may not be attacked. The intent to surrender can be shown with a white flag.
Under Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993), it is prohibited to kill or injure members of the enemy armed forces who have surrendered.
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “It is prohibited for combatants to … fire on, wound or kill an enemy combatant who has surrendered, been captured or with whom a ceasefire has been concluded”.
[T]he Geneva Conventions are based on the respect for the human being and his or her dignity. They provide that “persons who do not participate directly in hostilities … [or] who are placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds [or] detention” must be respected and protected against the effects of war.
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) forbids attacks against non-combatants, including soldiers who surrender or who are sick, wounded or captured.
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. 3.
The enemy soldier may reach the point where he would rather surrender than fight. He may signal to you with a white flag, by emerging from his position with arms raised or by yelling to cease fire. The manner he expresses his wish to surrender may vary, but you must give him the opportunity to surrender once he has manifested it. It is illegal to fire at an enemy who has laid down his arms as a sign of surrender.
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, pp. 6–7.
Members of the armed forces incapable of participating in combat due to injury or illness may not be the object of attack.
Shipwrecked persons, whether military or civilian, may not be the object of attack.
Combatants cease to be subject to attack when they have individually laid down their arms to surrender, when they are no longer capable of resistance or when the unit in which they are serving or embarked has surrendered or has been captured.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, §§ 11.4, 11.6 and 11.8; see also § 8.2.1.
3.Offences against the sick and wounded, including killing, wounding, or mistreating enemy forces disabled by sickness or wounds.
4.… offences against combatants who have laid down their arms and surrendered.
5.Offences against the survivors of ships and aircraft lost at sea, including killing, wounding, or mistreating the shipwrecked, and failing to provide for the safety of survivors as military circumstances permit.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.5(3)–(5).
El Salvador, Manual del Combatiente, undated, p. 7.
El Salvador, Manual del Combatiente, undated, p. 8.
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, states that under international conventions it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
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. 105; see also p. 104.
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, § 604, picture 601, pp. 33–34.
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, § 705.
Only that violence may be used which is necessary to strike down the adversary. The defenceless or surrendering adversary may no longer be fought.
The wounded, sick and shipwrecked shall be respected and protected in all circumstances. Any violence to their lives or persons is prohibited.
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. 3 and 5.
The manual further recognizes the white flag as the flag of parlementaires and the flag of surrendering combatants.
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, p. 6.
Greece, Hellenic Navy Regulations (Part A), Presidential Decree 210/1993, as amended, Article 5325.
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 4.
5. … [P]rotect … the wounded and sick.
- refusing an unconditional surrender.
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 15(b)3.
b. Shipwrecked crew, including the crew of military air craft of the adverse party.
The laws of war do set clear bars to the possibility of harming combatants when the combatant is found “outside the frame of hostilities”, as when he asks to surrender, or when he is wounded in a way that does not allow him to take an active part in the fighting. In such situations, it is absolutely prohibited to harm the combatant.
When is a combatant regarded as leaving the sphere of hostilities? While storming at zero distance, must a combatant hold his fire against a combatant raising his hands, but still holding his weapon? This is a difficult question to answer, especially under combat conditions. At any rate, there are several criteria that can guide us: Does the combatant show clear intent to surrender using universally accepted signs, such as raising his hands? Is the soldier seeking to surrender liable to jeopardize our forces or is the range considered not dangerous? Did the surrenderer lay down his arms?
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 42 and 45.
The rules of warfare … include many customs that have become entrenched in warfare over the years, such as not attacking a prisoner-of-war who is asking to surrender or waving a white flag as a sign of surrender.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 10.
The manual further states that “it is forbidden to attack the enemy’s wounded”.
[T]he rules of war include a ban on attacking a combatant who is “hors de combat”, for example while he is asking to surrender or if he is wounded in such a way that does not allow him to participate in combat actively. In situations such as these, it is absolutely forbidden in the strongest terms to attack such combatant.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states that it is prohibited to use violence “to kill or injure an enemy … when he, having laid down arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”. It also forbids “firing at the shipwrecked”.
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, § 8(2) and (3).
Furthermore, one of the rules to be observed when confronted with enemy combatants who surrender is “to spare them”.
Combatants who are captured (with or without having surrendered) shall no longer be attacked. Their protective status starts from the moment of capture, and applies only to captured combatants who then abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, pp. 6 and 7; see also Précis No. 2, p. 15 and Précis No. 3, p. 14.
Lebanon’s Army Regulations (1971) and Field Manual (1996) prohibit attacks against persons intending to surrender, and against the wounded, sick, shipwrecked and prisoners.
Lebanon, Règlement Général de l’Armée, No. 1/400, Ministère de la Défense, Commandement de l’Armée, 14 January 1971, § 17; Manuel de Service du Terrain dans l’Armée Libanaise, Arrêt No. 3188/A.A./Q, Département de l’Armée pour la Planification, Direction des Etudes Générales, 23 October 1996, §§ 7 and 8(a), (e) and (f).
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 7-O, § 17; see also Fiche No. 5-T, § 4.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-SO, § A.
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention II, states: “The Convention provides that members of the armed forces and other persons at sea who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked must be respected and protected in all circumstances”.
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 111.
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(n).
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
It is prohibited to attack an adversary who has laid down his arms or has surrendered.
In addition, an adversary who has indicated his intention to surrender may not be attacked.
An adversary who is unconscious or who is otherwise placed hors de combat by wounds or sickness, and who is no longer capable of defending himself may not be attacked either. In general, any person who is in the power of an adverse party may not be attacked.
A combatant who has just become a prisoner of war and uses violence or escapes ceases to be hors de combat and may again be the target of attack.
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, pp. IV-3 and IV-4.
Netherlands, IFOR Instructiekaart, geweldsinstructie, First Edition, 18 December 1995, § 4.
0409. An adversary who has laid down his arms or surrendered may not be attacked. An adversary who intimates that he is going to surrender also may not be attacked: he must be treated as a prisoner of war. An adversary who is unconscious or otherwise hors de combat due to wounds or sickness, so that he cannot defend himself, may not be attacked. In general, a person who is in the power of an adversary may not be attacked. However, a combatant who has been taken as a prisoner of war and uses violence or escapes has himself forfeited his “hors de combat” status and may again be the target of an attack. The degree of force will depend on circumstances and need.
0410. If a person falls into the adversary’s hands and the conditions of battle prevent that person from being removed as a prisoner of war, that person must be released.
A British military tribunal rejected an appeal to necessity of war in the case of the Peleus, a German U-boat whose commander had given the order to fire on life rafts carrying drowning survivors from a ship torpedoed by him, to prevent them from revealing the presence of his submarine. An American military commission would not admit an appeal to necessity of war by the German Lieutenant Thiele who, while hiding from American troops encircling him, had allowed a wounded American prisoner of war to be killed.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0409–0410.
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 4(e).
Under Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), it is prohibited “to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer any means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 39, § 5(l)(iii).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War considers “killing or injuring an enemy who has laid down his weapons” as an “illegitimate tactic”.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 14(a)(5).
Under Nigeria’s Soldiers’ Code of Conduct, it is prohibited “to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer any means of defence has surrendered at discretion”.
Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, § 12(d).
Peru’s Human Rights Charter of the Security Forces (1991) states that it is prohibited to kill defenceless persons and adds that “the life of captured, surrendered and wounded persons must be respected”.
Peru, Derechos Humanos: Decálogo de las Fuerzas del Orden, Comando Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, Ministerio de Defensa, Ejército Peruano, 1991, pp. 6 and 7.
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.
The wounded and sick are all those persons, whether military or civilian, who, because of their physical or mental condition, are in need of medical assistance or care and refrain from any act of hostility.
The shipwrecked are all those persons, whether military or civilian, who are in peril at sea or in other waters. They continue to be considered shipwrecked until the rescue operation has ended.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 33.a.(3).
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), p. 248; see also § 36(a), p. 297 and § 100(a), p. 297 (prisoners of war).
Philippines, Rules for Combatants, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(II), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 3.
4. Don’t kill enemy combatants who are wounded, who could no longer fight or who have already surrendered. By International Humanitarian Law, it is authorized to neutralize enemy forces by reasonable means while in combat. An enemy who wields a firearm and considered a threat is still a military objective and thus considered an authorized target. As long as he is wielding his firearm, he can still be considered as target for neutralization. But as soon as he drops his firearm, raises his hand or a white cloth that is a gesture of symbol of surrender, he can no longer be shot.
Philippines, Philippine Army Soldier’s Handbook on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, A Practical Guide for Internal Security Operations, 2006, p. 59, § 4.
Surrender … – Any intention to surrender must be clearly expressed: raising arms, throwing away one’s weapons, bearing a white flag, etc.
Philippines, Philippine Army Soldier’s Handbook on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, A Practical Guide for Internal Security Operations, 2006, pp. 68 and 71, Glossary.
The Republic of Korea’s Military Law Manual (1996) states that combatants who are disabled shall not be attacked.
Republic of Korea, Military Law Manual, 1996, p. 86.
The Republic of Korea’s Operational Law Manual (1996) states that combatants who are unwilling to fight or express their intention to surrender shall not be attacked.
Republic of Korea, Operational Law Manual, 1996, p. 43.
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) instructs combatants that the “killing or injuring of an adversary who surrenders … is prohibited”.
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 32; see also p. 5.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides that it is prohibited “to kill or injure enemy persons who have laid down their arms, who have no means of defending themselves, who have surrendered”.
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(h).
Don’t fight enemies who are sick, wounded or who surrender. Such persons are no longer in a position to fight. They are to be made Prisoners of War and not to be punished, but only prevented from continuing to fight (disarmament) and their suffering minimized (medical care if needed). They should therefore be protected and you have a duty to collect and care for them, whether they are friend or foe.
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. 34; see also p. 10.
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured”, as well as “to refuse an unconditional surrender”.
c)because he is unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and is therefore incapable of defending himself.
In any of these cases, he always abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape. Otherwise, the prohibition [to attack him] disappears.
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, § 3.3.c.(3); see also §§ 4.5.b.(1)b), 10.6.a and 10.8.f.(1).
c. have been rendered unconscious or are otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness and therefore incapable of defending themselves.
These persons are considered hors de combat provided that they abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape. If they do not comply with these requirements, the prohibition no longer applies.
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.c.(3); see also § 4.5.a.(1).(b).
Personnel attempting to save themselves from a sinking vessel shall according to international humanitarian law be considered as distressed, and may not be attacked.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.2, pp. 32 and 33.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “It is prohibited to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered.” Furthermore, “a person who surrenders must clearly indicate his intention by his behaviour; he must no longer attempt to fight or escape”.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 19, including commentary.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 20, commentary.
The manual further provides that it is prohibited to finish off or exterminate the wounded and sick.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 69, commentary.
The manual also notes that “prisoners of war are protected persons” and that “captivity starts as soon as a member of the armed forces falls into enemy hands”.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 96(2) and 109.
In addition, according to the manual, “to finish off the wounded”, “to machine-gun the shipwrecked” and “to kill or injure an enemy who is surrendering” constitute war crimes under the manual.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 192, commentary and 200(2)(e).
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rule 2.
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, 1 July 2005, Chart of Protective Signs.
3 Protected persons are persons who are not or no longer taking part in combat or enjoy specially protected status, such as … wounded persons and prisoners of war.
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 159(3), 173, 182–183 and 186; see also § 172. The German language version notes in the first sentence of § 173: “… as soon as they have laid down their arms or are otherwise [“sonstwie”] hors de combat.” Heading 13.2 reads in the German language version: “Behaviour with regard to surrendering [“sich ergebenden”] combatants and prisoners”.
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 4; see also Fascicule I, p. 17 and Fascicule II, p. 18.
Uganda’s Code of Conduct (1986) orders troops to “never kill … any captured prisoners, as the guns should only be reserved for armed enemies or opponents”.
Uganda, Code of Conduct for the National Resistance Army (NRA), Legal Notice No. 1 of 1986 (Amendment), 23 August 1986, § A.4.
1.4.12. All wounded, sick and shipwrecked or those who have suffered an aircraft crash irrespective of their previous participation in an armed conflict shall be respected and protected.
- directing attacks against persons protected by international humanitarian law [including bearers of flags of truce and those who accompany them].
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.3.2, 1.4.10, 1.4.12 and 1.8.5.
It is forbidden to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer the means of defence, has surrendered at discretion, i.e., unconditionally … A combatant is entitled to commit acts of violence up to the moment of his surrender without losing the benefits of quarter.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 119.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 476.
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides that it is forbidden “to kill or wound someone who has surrendered, having laid down his arms, or who no longer has any means of defence”.
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(b); see also Annex A, p. 44, § 12 and p. 47, § 10(f).
c. to kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.
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, § 29.
Furthermore, the Pamphlet states: “In addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of situations involving individual criminal responsibility: … deliberate attack on … shipwrecked survivors”.
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) forbids attacks against non-combatants, including soldiers who surrender or who are sick, wounded or captured.
Enemy soldiers may reach the point where they would rather surrender than fight. They may signal to you by waving a white flag, by crawling from their positions with arms raised, or by yelling at you to stop firing so that they can give up. The way they signal their desire to surrender may vary, but you must allow them to give up once you receive the signal. It is illegal to fire on enemy soldiers who have thrown down their weapons and offered to surrender.
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. 13.
United States, Field Manual 8–10, Health Service Support in a Theatre of Operations, Department of the Army Headquarters, 1 March 1991, p. A-2.
United States, Desert Storm – Rules of Engagement, Pocket Card, US Central Command, January 1991, reprinted in Operational Law Handbook, International and Operational Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, pp. 8-7 and 8-8, § A.
The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) prohibits the “killing or wounding of enemy who have surrendered or are incapacitated and incapable of resistance”.
United States, Operational Law Handbook, JA 422, Center for Law and Military Operations and International Law Division, The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-1781, 1993, p. Q-182(h).
Similarly, shipwrecked persons, whether military or civilian, may not be the object of attack.
Combatants cease to be subject to attack when they have individually laid down their arms to surrender … or when the unit in which they are serving or embarked has surrendered … However, the law of armed conflict does not precisely define when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished in practical terms. Surrender involves an offer by the surrendering party (a unit or individual combatant) and an ability to accept on the part of the opponent. The latter may not refuse an offer of surrender when communicated, but that communication must be made at a time when it can be received and properly acted upon – an attempt to surrender in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness.
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), §§ 11.4 and 11.7; see also § 8.2.1.
5. Offenses against the survivors of ships and aircraft lost at sea, including killing, wounding, or mistreating the shipwrecked; and failing to provide for the safety of survivors as military circumstances permit.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 6.2.5(3)-(5).
Combatants, whether lawful or unlawful, who are hors de combat are those who cannot, do not, or cease to participate in hostilities due to wounds, sickness, shipwreck, surrender, or capture. They may not be intentionally or indiscriminately attacked. They may be detained.
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, § 8.2.3.
Combatants, whether lawful or unlawful, cease to be subject to attack when they have individually laid down their arms and indicate clearly their wish to surrender. The law of armed conflict does not precisely define when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished in practical terms. Surrender involves an offer by the surrendering party (a unit or individual combatant) and an ability to accept on the part of the opponent. The latter may not refuse an offer of surrender when communicated, but that communication must be made at a time when it can be received and properly acted upon – an attempt to surrender in the midst of an ongoing battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness. The mere fact that a combatant or enemy force is retreating or fleeing the battlefield, without some other positive indication of intent, does not constitute an attempt to surrender, even if such combatant or force has abandoned his or its arms or equipment.
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, § 8.2.3.3.
3. Offenses against the sick and wounded, including killing, wounding, or mistreating enemy forces disabled by sickness or wounds.
4. … offenses against combatants who have laid down their arms and surrendered.
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, § 6.2.6(3)–(5).
(2)  Geneva Convention [II] … This convention requires the … protection of members of the armed forces and other persons at sea who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 49.
The manual prohibits killing or injuring members of the armed forces as of the moment of surrender.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 68.
Zimbabwe, Code of Conduct for Combatants, Joint publication of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces and the International Committee of the Red Cross Regional Delegation in Harare, 1993, p. 8.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “directing attacks against a person who … having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(13).
Bahrain, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 102.
Under the Criminal Code (1998) of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whoever “kills or wounds an enemy who has laid down arms or unconditionally surrendered or has no means of defence” commits a war crime.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 158(1).
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 438(1).
Whoever in violation of the rules of international law in time of war or armed conflict kills or wounds an enemy who has laid down arms or unconditionally surrendered or has no means of defence, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of between one and ten years.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 177(1).
f) killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(f).
6°. Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(6°).
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on anyone who, during an armed conflict, commits acts aimed at leaving no survivors or at killing the wounded and sick.
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), whoever “kills or wounds an enemy who has laid down arms, or has surrendered at discretion, or has no longer any means of defence” commits a war crime.
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 161(1).
Egypt’s Military Criminal Code (1966) punishes anyone who commits violence against a person incapacitated by wounds or sickness if that person is incapable of defending himself.
Egypt, Military Criminal Code, 1966, Article 137.
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “a person who kills … enemy combatants after they have laid down their arms and are placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds or another reason” commits a war crime.
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 101.
The protected persons are protected as long as they abstain from taking a direct part in hostilities.
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), the wilful killing or wounding of “persons who … have no means of defence, as well as … wounded and sick” in international or non-international armed conflicts is a crime.
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(2)(a).
Furthermore, any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute, which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms … has surrendered at discretion” in international armed conflicts, is a crime.
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “wounds a member of the opposing armed forces or a combatant of the adverse party after the latter has surrendered unconditionally”.
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: “Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has clearly surrendered”.
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(G).
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 41, is a punishable offence.
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides that it is prohibited to use violence “to kill or injure an enemy … when he, having laid down arms and having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”. It also forbids “firing at the shipwrecked”.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 35(2) and (3).
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, “killing … persons who have surrendered by giving up their arms or having no means to put up resistance, the wounded, sick persons or the crew of a sinking ship” during an international armed conflict or occupation is a war crime.
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961 as amended in 1998, Article 333; see also Article 337.
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “killing or injuring a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(6).
killing or wounding a combatant who is in the power of the adverse party, who has clearly indicated he wished to surrender, or who is unconscious or otherwise hors de combat as a result of wounds or sickness and is therefore unable to defend himself, provided that he refrains in all these cases from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(3)(e).
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any soldier “who maltreats an enemy who … is defenceless”.
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 53.
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103(k).
Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980) punishes the persons “who finish off … the surrendered or wounded enemy who does not put up resistance”.
Peru, Code of Military Justice, 1980, Article 94.
Any member of the military or police who in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict wounds a member of the enemy armed forces or a combatant of the adverse party after he or she has unconditionally surrendered or is in any other way hors de combat shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than six and no more than 12 years.
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 92.
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than three and not more than ten years if he or she, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces have assumed control over the internal order, injures a member of the adverse armed forces after he or she has unconditionally surrendered or has otherwise been placed hors de combat.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 89.
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) punishes anyone who “kills … persons who, having laid down their arms or having no longer means of defence, have surrendered at discretion”.
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 123(1)(1).
16° killing or wounding a person in the knowledge that he does not participate in the hostilities, or, in case he did fight, that he has laid down his arms or no longer has the means to defend himself.
5. killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion.
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(5).
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), whoever “kills or wounds an enemy who has laid down arms or surrendered unconditionally or who is defenceless” commits a war crime.
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 379(1).
361. Treacherous violence. Surrender at discretion. – 1. Anyone who, in violation of the law and international agreements, treacherously uses violence against a person belonging to the enemy State, shall be punished by imprisonment for 1 to 15 years, if the act has resulted in personal harm, and by life imprisonment if the act has resulted in death.
2. The same penalties shall be applied where violence is used, even if not treacherously, against a person belonging to the enemy who has surrendered at discretion.
382. Arbitrary refusal to recognize the status of a lawful belligerent. – A commander who causes serious harm to lawful enemy belligerents who have fallen into his power, or to the sick, wounded or shipwrecked, by not according them the treatment prescribed by law or by international agreements … shall be punished, unless the act constitutes a more serious offence, by military confinement for not less than three years.
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Articles 361 and 382.
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes any soldier “who mistreats an enemy who has surrendered or who has no longer means of defending himself”.
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 69.
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, “attacks … on persons who are injured or disabled” are “crimes against international law”.
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6(3).
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, punishes “anyone who kills or injures an enemy who has surrendered or who has otherwise ceased to defend himself” in time of armed conflict.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code as amended, 1927, Article 112.
is to be punished with three years’ or more imprisonment or with a monetary penalty or, in less serious cases, with a year imprisonment or less.
Anyone who has wantonly committed an act of violence against a prisoner of war, wounded, or sick combatant incapable of defending himself, shall be liable to disciplinary imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months.
United Arab Emirates, Regulations on Disciplinary Penalties, 2000, Article 40.
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(vi) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(c) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes.
According to Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, it is a crime against international law to “make a serious attempt on the life of those who surrender”.
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998, as amended, Article 474(2).
Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “a person who kills … the enemy who has laid down his arms or has surrendered unconditionally or has no means of defence” commits a war crime.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 146(1).
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, commentary on Article 146.
 …[T]he panel of the General Court Martial found you guilty of having behaved in a disgraceful manner. You were also charged with second degree murder, of attempt to commit murder using a firearm, and of negligent performance of a military duty, but the panel found you not guilty of these charges. I must now impose a just and appropriate sentence.
e. your blameworthy state of mind at the time of the commission of the offence.
 You deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 as part of the Operational Mentor Liaison Team [OMLT] assigned to mentor the Afghan National Army (ANA). You were the commander of call sign 72A. This team was composed of four members divided into two fire teams. During the month of October 2008, you were involved in a clearing operation with the Afghan National Army in Helmand province in Afghanistan. You were mentoring the commander of an Afghan infantry company during that operation. On 19 October 2008, the lead element of that company encountered an enemy position. Attack helicopters were called in to suppress the enemy position. You and your fire team partner were located with Captain Shaffigullah, the ANA company commander, at the rear of the company when you first came upon the first insurgent who was lying on a path by a cornfield.
 The situation on the ground at the time seemed relatively calm although the potential for danger is omnipresent in such combat operations. After a brief examination of the insurgent, the ANA company commander moved to the position of the dead insurgent in the next cornfield. You also went to the location of the second insurgent and then you returned to the location of the first insurgent so that your fire team partner could photograph the insurgent for intelligence purposes. Once the photographs had been taken, you shot the insurgent.
 Your identity as the offender and the time and place of the offence were never in contention during this trial. It was evident the insurgent was unarmed and that you were the commander call sign 72A at the time of the offence. The nature and extent of the insurgent’s wounds were described by numerous witnesses during the trial. Four witnesses testified he was alive when they observed him. I instructed the panel they had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the unnamed male person was alive when you shot him, because the particulars of the charge allege that the unnamed male person was wounded. As I instructed the panel, a “wound” is defined as an injury to living tissue caused by a cut, blow, or other impact; thus one must be alive to be described as “wounded.” Therefore, I conclude the panel was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the insurgent was still alive at the time you shot him.
 When addressing your state of mind, I instructed the panel that the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to shoot the unarmed and wounded unnamed person. I take from the panel's verdict that they believed you intentionally shot the first insurgent. It does not really matter whether you shot the insurgent twice in quick succession – a “double-tap,” as we are taught in our infantry training – or whether you only shot him once.
 As I explained to the panel, to behave in a disgraceful manner requires that the behaviour is shockingly unacceptable in the circumstances. “Shocking” is defined as causing indignation or disgust. Having considered all of the evidence on the roles and duties of the OMLT members, the conduct expected of CF [Canadian Forces] members involved in operations in Afghanistan and the evidence pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the shooting of the insurgent, the panel decided that this behaviour was shockingly unacceptable in the circumstances.
 Why is shooting an unarmed and wounded person considered disgraceful? The code of conduct for CF personnel clearly states that we must offer assistance to wounded enemies that do not pose a threat to us. The code of conduct was taught to every OMLT member and was part of the soldier's card issued to every OMLT member. It was clear from the testimony of every witness that one cannot shoot an unarmed and wounded enemy. I conclude that shooting a wounded and unarmed person in the circumstances of the present case is considered disgraceful because it is so fundamentally contrary to our values, doctrine, and training that it is shockingly unacceptable.
 The prosecutor stated that Canadian soldiers must treat the enemy hors de combat humanely and that such mistreatment represents a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. He then mentioned you had not been convicted of a grave breach, but that he only wished to underline the seriousness of the offence. He also argued that ending the life of another is not permitted under Canadian law and that assisted suicide is an offence in Canada. He then referred to courts martial pertaining to the mistreatment of the young detainee in Somalia.
 I find these submissions orient the discussion in the wrong direction and are of no assistance to the court in determining an appropriate sentence. You were not charged under section 130 of the NDA of having committed a grave breach contrary to section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act. You have not been found guilty of murder or of assisting a suicide. The facts surrounding this offence bear absolutely no resemblance to the facts surrounding the atrocities committed on the young Somali. I will say it again: You are to be sentenced for the offence for which you were convicted and not for an offence for which you might have been charged or for an offence for which you were found not guilty. The particulars of the charge do not allege you killed the insurgent; they allege you shot the insurgent.
 The Code of Service Discipline contains 60 distinctive military offences that may be found at ss. 73 to 129 of the National Defence Act. A review of the maximum sentences prescribed by these service offences indicates that this offence is objectively one of the more serious offences found the Code of Service Discipline. The maximum punishments for 28 of these 60 service offences are punishments of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than two years. The maximum punishment for behaving in a disgraceful manner is imprisonment for five years. Therefore, based on the maximum punishment a court martial may impose for this offence, the offence to which you have been found guilty is objectively one of the more serious service offences.
 … You decided to shoot an unarmed and wounded insurgent. Notwithstanding your motive, you chose not to follow the clear directives that had been provided to you throughout your training in the Canadian Forces and by your chain of command. … Had you respected the clear, simple rules found on your soldier’s card and inculcated in every Canadian soldier, you would not have shot the wounded and unarmed insurgent and you would not have behaved in a disgraceful manner.
 … Having considered the specific circumstances of this offence and of the offender, and the mitigating and aggravating factors, I do not believe that in the present case a sentence of imprisonment is the appropriate minimum necessary sentence to maintain discipline and to restore discipline in the offender and in military society. I would add that separating the offender from society, in our case military society, may be done through incarceration, but also through dismissal from Her Majesty's service.
 Dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service is a most severe punishment. A punishment of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service means you are not eligible to serve Her Majesty again in any military or civil capacity unless there is an emergency or the punishment is set aside or altered. It also affects some of the benefits you could receive upon release from the CF.
 The court must impose a sentence that will provide a clear message to you and to others that such behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. … You also demonstrated a lack of self-discipline and of respect for fundamental principles and orders. The sentence I am about to pronounce will address these concerns.
 … I conclude that the minimum necessary sentence in the present case is dismissal from Her Majesty’s service and a reduction in rank to the rank of second lieutenant.
Canada, General Court Martial, Semrau case, Reasons for Sentence, 5 October 2010, §§ 1, 4–10, 33–34, 37, 44–45 and 47–53.
would not have been contrary to international principles, for the protection afforded by the regulations for land warfare does not extend to such wounded who take up arms again and renew the fight. Such men have by doing so forfeited the claim for mercy granted to them by the laws of warfare.
Germany, Leipzig Court, Stenger and Cruisus case, Judgment, 1921.
In the Llandovery Castle case in 1921, Germany’s Reichsgericht found the accused, two crew officers, guilty of having fired upon enemies in lifeboats in violation of the laws and customs of war after their hospital ship had been sunk. The prosecutor emphasized that “in war at sea the killing of ship-wrecked persons who have taken refuge in lifeboats is forbidden”. The Court rejected the accused’s defence of superior orders on the ground that the rule prohibiting firing on lifeboats was “simple and universally known”.
Germany, Reichsgericht, Llandovery Castle case, Judgment, 16 July 1921.
In 1968, in a Nigerian case referred to by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the interlocutory appeal in the Tadić case, “a Nigerian Lieutenant was court-martialled, sentenced to death and executed by a firing squad at Port-Harcourt for killing a rebel Biafran soldier who had surrendered to Federal troops near Aba”.
Nigeria, Case of 3 September 1968 cited in Daily Times – Nigeria, 3 September 1968, p. 1; Daily Times – Nigeria, 4 September 1968, p. 1; referred to in ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 106.
The Eck case (The Peleus Trial) before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1945 concerned the sinking, during the Second World War, of a Greek steamship by a German U-boat on the high seas and the subsequent killing of shipwrecked members of the crew of the Greek boat. Four members of the crew of the German U-boat were accused of having violated the laws and usages of war by firing and throwing grenades on the survivors of the sunken ship. The Court held that there was no case of justifiable recourse to the plea of necessity when the accused killed by machine-gun fire survivors of a sunken ship, in order to destroy every trace of sinking and thus make the pursuit of the submarine improbable. In summing up, the Judge Advocate underlined that it was a fundamental usage of war that the killing of unarmed enemies was forbidden as a result of the experience of civilized nations through many centuries. He also stated that to fire so as to kill helpless survivors of a torpedoed ship was a grave breach of the law of nations. He added that the right to punish the perpetrators of such an act had clearly been recognized for many years. The accused were found guilty of the war crimes charged.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Eck case (The Peleus Trial), Judgment, 20 October 1945.
In the Renoth case before the UK Military Court at Elten in 1946, the accused, two German policemen and two German customs officials, were accused of committing a war crime for their involvement in the killing of an Allied airman whose plane had crashed on German soil. After he had emerged from his aircraft unhurt, the pilot was arrested by Renoth, then attacked and beaten, before Renoth shot him. All the accused were found guilty.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Elten, Renoth case, Judgment, 10 January 1946.
In the Von Ruchteschell case before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1947, the accused was charged, inter alia, of having continued to fire on a British merchant vessel after the latter had indicated surrender. He was found guilty on that count. The central question concerned the ways of indicating surrender. The Court noted that, even if the accused did not receive a signal of surrender, he could still be convicted because he “deliberately or recklessly avoided any question of surrender by making it impossible for the ship to make a signal”, which constituted a violation of the customary rules of sea warfare.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Von Ruchteschell case, Judgment, 21 May 1947.
In the Dostler case before the US Military Commission at Rome in 1945, the accused, the commander of a German army corps, was found guilty of having ordered the shooting of 15 American prisoners of war in violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations and of long-established laws and customs of war. The accused relied on the defence of superior orders based, inter alia, on the Führer’s order of 18 October 1942. This order provided that enemy soldiers participating in commando operations should be given no quarter, but added that these provisions did not apply to enemy soldiers who surrendered and to those who were captured in actual combat within the limits of normal combat activities (offensives, large-scale air or seaborne landings), nor did they apply to enemy troops captured during naval engagements.
In 1958, during the Algerian war of independence, in an armed clash between the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) and French soldiers, the commander of the ALN battalion gave the order to spare enemy soldiers who wanted to surrender. The four French soldiers who surrendered were the only ones to survive the attack.
Report on the Practice of Algeria, 1997, Chapter 2.1, referring to “L’opération militaire du 11 janvier 1958”, El Moudjahid, Vol. 1, pp. 298–299.
In a speech at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 1995, the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to the UNTAC Rules of Engagement, which specifies that “attacks on soldiers who have laid down their arms” are a criminal act.
Australia, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Keynote Address entitled “The Use of Force in Peace Operations”, SIPRI and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Seminar, Stockholm, 10 April 1995, cited in Sarah Roberts (ed.), Australian Practice in International Law 1995, reprinted in Australian Yearbook of International Law, 1996, Vol. 17, p. 769.
In a case against the State relative to the takeover of the Palacio de Justicia by guerrillas in 1985, a Colombian administrative court cited a document of the Colombian Ministry of Defence stating that a commander should “respect the life of the enemy who offers to surrender”.
Colombia, Cundinamarca Administrative Court, Case No. 4010, Opinion of the Minister of Defence given before the House of Representatives, “Las fuerzas armadas de Colombia y la defensa de las institutiones democráticas”, Record of evidence.
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, pp. 200–201.
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 “[k]illing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer any means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”.
2. Do not kill an enemy who surrenders.
3. Never attack an adversary who carries a white flag.
According to a statement by the Egyptian Minister of War in 1984 in the context of the conflict with Israel, persons are “really” hors de combat when they are incapacitated or unable to endanger the life of others. Furthermore, when an Israeli soldier raised his hands, “he was taken as a prisoner of war”.
Egypt, Statement by the Minister of War, 1984, Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 2.1 and Answers to additional questions on Chapter 2.1.
Referring to India’s Army Act, the Report on the Practice of India states that any violation of the “duty not to attack someone who is incapable or unwilling to fight” may constitute “disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind”.
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 2.1, referring to the Army Act, 1950, Section 46.
The Report on the Practice of Iraq refers to a speech made by the Iraqi President in 1980 in which he called on the Iraqi armed forces to spare those incapacitated by wounds, sickness or unconsciousness.
Iraq, Speech by the President of Iraq, 28 September 1980, Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 2.1.
It should nevertheless be understood that during combat operations, it is often impossible to ascertain exactly at which point an opposing soldier becomes incapacitated, as opposed to merely taking cover, hiding, or “playing dead” in order to open fire at a later stage. Therefore, the practical implementation of this rule requires the commanders in the field to make best-judgment decisions as to whether or not that person continues to pose a threat to friendly forces.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
In 1993, an international commission of inquiry on human rights violations in Rwanda mandated by four NGOs reported the killing by the Rwandan Armed Forces of 150 combatants of the Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR) after they had laid down their arms.
International Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights Violations in Rwanda, Rapport final de la Commission internationale d’enquête sur les violations des droits de l’homme au Rwanda depuis le 1er octobre 1990, in Rapport sur les droits de l’homme au Rwanda, octobre 1992–octobre 1993, Association rwandaise pour la défense des droits de la personne et des libertés publiques, Kigali, December 1993, p. 64.
According to the Report on the Practice of Rwanda, when the Rwandan Government reacted to the report in April 1993, it did not condemn or deplore these acts nor did it express any intention of bringing those responsible to justice.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
9. If certain men belonging to the enemy (specified by their names) are taken alive, they should not be killed but delivered to the commander.
Somalia, Spared from the Spear, 1998, p. 27.
Somali convention dictated that, during a war, one was to fight only those who could fight him back. Therefore, if, during a raid on a settlement, a sick man, who was bed-ridden with illness, was encountered, it was against the established custom to kill him or cause him harm in any other way, since the sick also belonged to the general category of weak and defenceless persons whose killing was strictly prohibited.
If a wounded warrior is finished off in the heat of the battle, while the fighting still raged on, and neither side had achieved victory, it would be regarded to be something normal and quite legitimate. … If, on the other hand, after the battle was over, a wounded man from the enemy was found on the battlefield, the traditional immunity code would require that he should not be killed … This is so because a wounded man would in this case be as helpless and as vulnerable as those belonging typically to the category of weak persons such as women, children, the elderly and the sick.
As in the case of wounded warriors falling into the hands of the enemy, it was rare for a man captured in battle to be spared when the two sides in a conflict were involved in all-out unreserved hostilities and were said to have a dhiig-mayr or “blood-bath” ensuing between them. However, when the fighting and mutual enmity had not reached such a desperate level, and each side wanted to achieve a clean victory over the other, the common practice was to spare anyone who was captured in battle, and release him immediately so he could go back to his own camp. His mere capture was enough cause for embarrassment to his kinsmen as it was the source of exultation and boastful pride to those who had captured, and then released, him. It was the general rule that a man who had been taken prisoner in the fighting and then released would never again take part in fighting against those who had given him his life.
Somalia, Spared from the Spear, 1998, p. 45.
In 1982, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister stated that, following the sinking of an Argentine cruiser by a UK warship during the war in the South Atlantic, another UK warship returning to the area where the sinking had occurred was instructed not to attack warships engaged in rescuing the survivors.
United Kingdom, Letter of the Prime Minister in reply to a question asked in the House of Commons on the subject of the Falkland Islands situation, 1982, BYIL, Vol. 55, 1984, p. 595, § 13.
A training video on IHL produced by the UK Ministry of Defence illustrates the rule that “it is forbidden to kill or wound anyone who has laid down arms”.
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Training Video: The Geneva Conventions, 1986, Report on UK Practice, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
In 1991, before the UK Parliamentary Defence Committee, the officer commanding the UK forces in the Gulf War confirmed that the rules of engagement were modified in order to minimize casualties when it was realized that the Iraqis were seeking to surrender (the initial rules of engagement were to destroy the enemy). The plan was adjusted to encourage surrender rather than resistance.
United Kingdom, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Parliamentary Defence Committee, 8 May 1991, Defence Committee’s Tenth Report, 1991, § 86.
The Coalition have dropped approximately 32 million–33 million leaflets aimed at Iraqi citizens, mainly combatants, but also civilians.
Those aimed at combatants include instructions on how to surrender, including adopting a non-offensive posture, raising a white flag, stowing weapons, and parking combat vehicles in a square formation.
In addition, the Coalition have used radio and loudspeaker broadcasts to convey specific surrender instructions to combatants.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 10 April 2003, Vol. 403, Written Answers, col. 351W.
12.1. … A person hors de combat is: (a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party; ... provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
12.2. … Thus, as persons in the power of UK forces the detainees all fell within the definition of persons hors de combat.
United Kingdom, Ministry of Defence, Closing Submissions to the Baha Mousa Public Inquiry on Modules 1–3, 25 June 2010, §§ 12(1)–(2), p. 28.
In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed that “we support the principle that all the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked … not be made the object of attacks”.
In 1991, in response to an ICRC memorandum on the applicability of IHL in the Gulf region, the United States pointed out that its practice was consistent with the prohibition to attack those who had surrendered, as well as defenceless combatants, such as the wounded, sick and shipwrecked.
United States, Letter from the Department of the Army to the legal adviser of the US armed forces deployed in the Gulf region, 11 January 1991, § 8(J), Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 2.8.
However, there is a gap in the law of war in defining precisely when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished in practical terms. Surrender involves an offer by the surrendering party (a unit or an individual soldier) and an ability to accept on the part of his opponent. The latter may not refuse an offer of surrender when communicated, but that communication must be made at a time when it can be received and properly acted upon – an attempt at surrender in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness.
A combatant force involved in an armed conflict is not obliged to offer its opponent an opportunity to surrender before carrying out an attack … In the process [of military operations], Coalition forces continued to accept legitimate Iraqi offers of surrender in a manner consistent with the law of war. The large number of Iraqi prisoners of war is evidence of Coalition compliance with its law of war obligations with regard to surrendering forces.
In the course of the breaching operations, the Iraqi defenders were given the opportunity to surrender, as indicated by the large number of EPWs [enemy prisoners of war] taken by the division. However, soldiers must make their intent to surrender clear and unequivocal, and do so rapidly. Fighting from fortified emplacements is not a manifestation of an intent to surrender, and a soldier who fights until the very last possible moment assumes certain risks. His opponent either may not see his surrender, may not recognize his actions as an attempt to surrender in the heat and confusion of battle, or may find it difficult (if not impossible) to halt an onrushing assault to accept a soldier’s last-minute effort at surrender.
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, pp. 642 and 643.
In the case at hand, neither the composition, degree of unit cohesiveness, nor intent of the Iraqi military forces engaged was known at the time of the attack. At no time did any element within the formation offer to surrender. CENTCOM [Central Command] was under no law of war obligation to offer the Iraqi forces an opportunity to surrender before the attack.
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, pp. 643 and 644.
The opinio juris of the United States is that quarter must not be refused to an enemy who communicates an offer to surrender under circumstances permitting that offer to be understood and acted upon by U.S. forces. A combatant who appears merely incapable or unwilling to fight, e.g., because he has lost his weapon or is retreating from the battle, but who has not communicated an offer to surrender, is still subject to attack. (Persons hors de combat due to wounds, sickness or shipwreck must of course be respected in all circumstances, in accordance with the First and Second Geneva Conventions of 1949).
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
Order No. 579 issued in 1991 by the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides that YPA units shall “apply all means to prevent any … mistreatment of … persons who surrender or hoist the white flag in order to surrender”.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the YPA, Political Department, Order No. 579, 14 October 1991, § 2.
In 1998, in a statement by its President regarding the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council condemned “the killing or wounding of combatants who have laid down their weapons”.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/26, 31 August 1998, p. 1.
In a resolution adopted in 1980 in the context of the conflict in Kampuchea (Cambodia), the UN Commission on Human Rights urged the parties to “spare the lives of those enemy combatants who surrender or are captured”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 29 (XXXVI), 11 March 1980, § 5, voting record: 20-4-6.
a) It should be prohibited to kill or harm a combatant who has obviously laid down his arms or who has obviously no longer any weapons, without need for any expression of surrender on his part. Only such force as is strictly necessary in the circumstances to capture him should be applied.
b) In the case of a combatant who has still some weapons or whenever, as frequently happens, it cannot be ascertained whether he has weapons, an expression of surrender should be required.
UN Secretary-General, Report on respect for human rights in armed conflict, UN Doc. A/8052, 18 September 1970, § 107.
In 1992, in a report on the situation of human rights in Guatemala, the Independent Expert of the UN Commission on Human Rights reported that military sources had announced the death of three persons during an armed confrontation. The Expert mentioned he had access to photographs showing that the victims were given a “coup de grâce”. He also referred to the case of a commander officially killed in an armed confrontation, but who, according to the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG), was captured alive. The Expert asked the authorities to respect his life and physical integrity.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/10, 18 December 1992, §§ 65–66.
In 1993, in a report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights noted, with reference to the territories occupied by Israel, that he had received a number of reports indicating that “Palestinians were killed by members of the Israeli military after they had come out of the attacked houses and at a time when they did not pose any threat to the lives of the soldiers, some of them even after they had surrendered without showing any resistance”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/7, 7 December 1993, § 381.
In the section of the same report relative to Turkey, the Special Rapporteur referred to a communication concerning eight security officers who were charged with the manslaughter of a group of people they were attempting to capture. The Rapporteur did not say if the people in question were civilians or alleged members of the armed opposition. However, in his conclusion, the Rapporteur listed Turkey as a country where there was a conflict and called for the application of IHL.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/7, 7 December 1993, §§ 595, 604, 610 and 706.
In 1991, in a report on El Salvador, the Director of the Human Rights Division of ONUSAL described its investigation into a complaint brought by the Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) Command concerning a combatant wounded in an armed skirmish who had allegedly been killed by members of the Salvadoran armed forces. ONUSAL could not corroborate the facts but stated that the case concerned the situation of a person hors de combat who should “in all circumstances be treated humanely”.
ONUSAL, Director of the Human Rights Division, Report, UN Doc. A/46/658-S/23222, 15 November 1991, Annex, p. 18, §§ 52–53.
FMLN … began by denying that any wounded men had been executed … [Then,] it admitted that the wounded men had been executed and … announced that [the perpetrators] would be tried for the offence.
FMLN acknowledged the criminal nature of the incident and detained and tried the accused.
UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Report, UN Doc. S/25500, 1 April 1993, pp. 167–169.
In 1993 and 1994, the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories reported accounts of surrendered persons being fired at, as well as of a number of cases in which unarmed persons or those who had surrendered had been killed.
UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, Twenty-fifth report, UN Doc. A/48/557, 1 November 1993, § 874; Twenty-sixth report, UN Doc. A/49/511, 18 October 1994, § 142.
In 1985, in an explanatory memorandum on a draft resolution on the situation in Afghanistan, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly noted that “captured combatants have been systematically put to death”. It referred to these incidents as “violations of human rights”.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, Doc. 5495, 15 November 1985, Chapter II, §§ 16 and 17.
SADC, Statement by South Africa on behalf of the SADC before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/53/SR.9, 21 October 1998, § 13.
The Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 stated that the participants refused to accept that the “wounded are shown no mercy”.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I(1).
In the interlocutory appeal in the Tadić case in 1995, the ICTY Appeals Chamber referred to instructions given to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) by the leader of the Chinese Communist Party not to “kill or humiliate any of Chiang Kai-Shek’s army officers and men who lay down their arms” as an illustration of the extension of some general principles of the laws of warfare to internal armed conflicts.
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 102.
attacked Caracoles with guns, mortars, tanks and light warplanes. The miners defended themselves … most of the miners were killed. Some of the survivors fled to the hills and others fled to the houses in Villa Carmen. The soldiers pursued them and finished them off in their homes. They took others and tortured them and bayoneted many of them. They also cut the throats of the wounded.
The Commission pointed out to the Bolivian Government that these incidents constituted serious violations of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (right to life, right to humane treatment, right to personal liberty) and of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 7481 (Bolivia), Resolution, 8 March 1982, pp. 36–40.
The pilot of the helicopter … was killed, while the other two occupants … survived but were seriously injured. While the FMLN group sent the people from the village for help, the two surviving servicemen were killed, summarily executed by an FMLN combatant. The FMLN has admitted to what happened and has said that those responsible have been charged with committing a war crime by violating the FMLN’s code of conduct and the Geneva Conventions. The FMLN has said that the trial of the accused will be open and independent observers will participate.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 1990-1991, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.79.rev.1 Doc. 12, 22 February 1991, p. 442.
In 1997, in the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concerning the events at La Tablada in Argentina, the perpetrators of the initial attack on the Argentine military barracks alleged that, after the fighting ceased, agents of the State participated in the summary executions and torture of some of the captured attackers.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, § 3.
In its report, the Commission stated that the violent clash between the attackers and the armed forces “triggered application of the provisions of Common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions], as well as other rules relevant to the conduct of internal hostilities”.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, § 156.
The persons who participated in the attack on the military base were legitimate military targets only for such time as they actively participated in the fighting. Those who surrendered, were captured or wounded and ceased their hostile acts, fell effectively within the power of Argentine state agents, who could no longer lawfully attack or subject them to other acts of violence. Instead, they were absolutely entitled to the non-derogable guarantees of humane treatment set forth in both Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Article 5 of the [1969 American Convention on Human Rights]. The intentional mistreatment, much less summary execution, of such wounded or captured persons would be a particularly serious violation of both instruments.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, § 189.
The Commission found that the Argentine State was responsible for violations of the right to life and of the right to physical integrity protected by Articles 4 and 5 of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, §§ 244–247 and 379–380.
Furthermore, the perpetrators of the initial attack alleged, inter alia, that “the Argentine military deliberately ignored the attempt of the attackers to surrender”.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, § 182.
They added that “some parts of the barracks were reduced to rubble, without any acceptance of the attackers’ surrender or even any attempt to engage them in dialogue”.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, § 9.
The tape is … notable for what it does not show. In fact, it does not identify the precise time or day of the putative surrender attempt. Nor does it show what was happening at the same time in other parts of the base where other attackers were located. If these persons, for whatever reasons, continued to fire or commit hostile acts, the Argentine military might not unreasonably have believed that the white flag was an attempt to deceive or divert them.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, § 184.
The Commission found that the evidence was incomplete and stated that it “must conclude that the killing or wounding of the attackers which occurred prior to the cessation of combat on January 24, 1989 were legitimately combat related and, thus, did not constitute violations of the [1969 American Convention on Human Rights] or applicable humanitarian law rules”.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.137 (Argentina), Report, 18 November 1997, §§ 185–188.
A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances, should be recognized as being no longer able to participate in combat, shall not be attacked (e.g. surrendering, wounded, … shipwrecked in water).
Any intention to surrender must be clearly expressed: raising one’s arms, throwing away one’s weapons, bearing a white flag, etc.
Treatment as prisoner of war applies only to captured combatants who then abstain from any hostile act and do not attempt to escape.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 487, 488 and 496.
In an appeal issued in 1979 with respect to the conflict in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the ICRC appealed to all the parties to “spare the lives of those who surrender”. It also specifically requested that the Patriotic Front “cease the killing of captured enemy combatants”.
ICRC, Conflict in Southern Africa: ICRC appeal, 19 March 1979, §§ 5 and 7, IRRC, No. 209, 1979, pp. 88–89.
In an appeal issued in 1983 concerning the Iran–Iraq War, the ICRC pointed to grave violations of IHL committed by both countries, including “summary execution of captive soldiers”.
In an appeal issued in 1991, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia “to spare the lives of those who surrender”.
In a press release issued in 1992, the ICRC urged the parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina “to spare the lives of those who surrender”.
On several occasions in 1992, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan to spare the lives of those who surrendered.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1712, Afghanistan: ICRC appeals for compliance with humanitarian rules, 5 May 1992; Press Release No. 1724, Kabul: ICRC urges respect for civilians as medical facilities struggle to cope, 20 July 1992; Press Release No. 1726, Afghanistan: New ICRC appeal for compliance with humanitarian rules, 14 August 1992.
In a press release issued in 1992, the ICRC urged all the parties involved in the conflict in Tajikistan “to spare the lives of people who surrender”.
Captured combatants and persons who have laid down their arms no longer represent any danger and must be respected; they shall be handed over to the immediate hierarchical superior; killing such persons constitutes a crime and is absolutely forbidden.
In a press release issued in 1994 regarding the situation in Bihać (Bosnia and Herzegovina), the ICRC recalled that “the lives of all people who surrendered must be spared”.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1792, Bihac: urgent appeal, 26 November 1994.
In a press release issued in 1994, the ICRC urged the parties involved in the conflict in Chechnya “to spare the lives of people who surrender”.
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/58, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to comply with international humanitarian law, 23 November 2001.
Michael Bothe, Karl Joseph Partsch, Waldemar A. Solf (eds.), New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, pp. 219–220, citing William E. S. Flory, Prisoners of War: A Study in the Development of International Law, American Council of Public Affairs, Washington, 1942, p. 39.
The report mentioned a number of instances in which the contras executed combatants who had surrendered. Some witnesses confirmed that members of the militia who had resisted attacks by the contras and then surrendered were not hurt, but others described murders of military prisoners who had been captured unarmed.
Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, p. 42.
Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, p. 6.
The insurgents have only rarely taken prisoners in combat. They claim to disarm and release them on the spot. In regard to the FDN [one of the contra groups], however, credible testimony indicates that, at least on some occasions, their forces have actually ‘finished off’ wounded opponents.
Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, p. 41.
Representatives of the insurgent organizations claimed that governmental forces also executed the wounded on the spot, but according to the report, these claims could not be substantiated. However, the report mentioned instances of abuse of prisoners.
Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, pp. 56 and 57.
The conflict was regarded as non-international and it was considered that the parties were “bound to abide by the provisions of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and by customary international law rules applicable to internal armed conflicts”.
Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, p. 4.
Americas Watch, Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1985–1986, New York, March 1986, p. 102.
The report also noted abuses by the governmental forces, including killings, disappearances and mistreatment of prisoners, apparently aimed at individuals suspected of aiding the contras. The report stated that, “in addition to violating other human rights norms, they constitute violations of the laws of war”.
Americas Watch, Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1985–1986, New York, March 1986, p. 67.
In 1989, in a report on violations of the laws of war in Angola, Africa Watch stated: “Applicable international law rules prohibit … [a]ttacks against combatants who are captured [or] surrender”.
In 1990, an extract from a document from the Rwandan Press Agency mentioned that Ugandan journalists were permitted to visit prisoners of war in Kigali, evidencing the fact that, in some cases, members of the Rwandan Armed Forces did give quarter to those who surrendered. The journalists reported that many of the 17 prisoners were young, since they were the ones most likely to surrender when confronted by the Rwandan Armed Forces.
Agence Rwandaise de Presse, Bulletin No. 003847, 1 December 1990, pp. 1–2.
In a resolution adopted in 1991, the Politico-Military High Command of the SPLM/A stated that “whenever an enemy soldier is disarmed or unarmed, his or her life will be spared, protected and respected as a prisoner of war (POW) under the Geneva Conventions”.
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, PMHC Resolution No. 15: Human Rights and Civil Liberties, 11 September 1991, § 15.3, Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 2.1.

References: § 1305
 § 839
 § 1315
 § 5
 § 132
 § 132
 § 493
 § 372
 § 432
 § 342
 § 432
 § 141
 § 331
 § 392
 § 405
 § 463
 § 613
 § 20
 § 21
 § 2
 § 309
 § 608
 § 707
 § 1609
 § 1609
 § 3
 § 2
 § 2
 § 4
 § 3
 § 2
 § 8
 § 6
 § 604
 § 705
 § 15
 § 8
 § 17
 § 17
 § 4
 § 111
 § 14
 § 4
 § 4
 § 5
 § 14
 § 12
 § 31
 § 33
 § 32
 § 36
 § 100
 § 3
 § 4
 § 5
 § 3
 § 3
 § 4
 § 172
 § 173
 § 119
 § 476
 § 2
 § 12
 § 10
 § 29
 § 8
 § 6
 § 8
 § 8
 § 6
 § 49
 § 68
 § 101
 § 103
 § 6
 § 106
 § 13
 § 86
 § 8
 § 2
 § 5
 § 107
 § 381
 § 874
 § 142
 § 13
 § 102
 § 3
 § 156
 § 189
 § 182
 § 9
 § 184
 § 15