Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter32_rule102
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:35:57+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning collective punishments, see Rule 103.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 33, first para.
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 5(3).
This guarantee is non-derogable under Article 27(2).
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 27(2).
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 75(4)(b). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 6(2)(b). Article 6 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 97.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the Eighteenth Ordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Nairobi, 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev.5, Article 7(2).
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 25(2).
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, adopted at the 19th Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, Res. 49/19-P, Cairo, 5 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 19 September 1990 from the permanent representative of Egypt to the UN addressed to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/421-S/21797, 20 September 1990, Article 19(c).
Article 4 of the 1994 ICTR Statute grants the Tribunal jurisdiction over violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol II.
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 4.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) forbids collective punishment against prisoners of war, civilians in general and in occupied territories, whether in international or internal armed conflicts.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 10-7, § 61, p. 11-4, § 33, p. 11-8, § 63, p. 12-5, § 41(d) and p. 17-3, § 21(a).
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-3, § 29(b).
a. the punishment of a protected person for an offence not committed by that person.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1121.2.a.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states: “As a minimum, accused persons: … b. shall not be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1716.2.b.
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, § 5.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 3.1.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides that one of the three main principles common to IHL and human rights is the principle of security, which guarantees to every human being the right not to be held responsible for an offence he or she did not commit.
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. 52.
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. 74.
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 410.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that a person charged with a criminal offence under international humanitarian law must be provided with certain guarantees, including: “individual criminal responsibility”.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 32.n.(2).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 33(n)(2), p. 251.
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that captured combatants and civilians “shall not be held responsible for acts which they have not committed”.
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 34.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) stresses that “any collective punishment for individual acts” is prohibited.
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, § 8.7.b.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 153.
The Hague Rules forbid collective punishment, in the form of a general pecuniary or other penalty, of the population for acts of individuals for which the population as a whole cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible. It was formerly thought that the prohibition did not exclude reprisals against a locality or community for some act committed by its inhabitants or members who cannot be identified. However, the Civilian Convention, Art. 33 has prohibited collective penalties and has expressly adopted the principle that “no protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed”.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 647; see also §§ 42 (civilians), 205 (prisoners of war) and 553 (occupied territory).
In the case of penal offences relating to the armed conflict, the basic principles of natural justice must be observed … These principles include the following: … no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility.
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009), which includes a chapter on war crimes, states: “Criminal responsibility is individual: one may only be punished for his or her own acts”.
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 18.
Central African Republic, Penal Code, 2010, Article 8.
Chile, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1906, as amended in 2007, Article 54.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 3.
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 33 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 75(4)(b), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 6(2)(b), are punishable offences.
Kyrgyzstan, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 3(1).
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article X.
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 2.
Taking into account … the development of customary international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflicts, the Constitutional Court notes that the fundamental guarantees stemming from the principle of humanity, some of which have attained ius cogens status, … [include] the obligation to respect … the principle of … individual criminal responsibility.
130 … [I]n principle, individual criminal liability is individual. However, some adjustments are needed for a better understanding of this principle. Indeed, some criminalize complicity and co-perpetration; others, in particular international criminal law and military criminal law, … provide that superiors can, in certain circumstances, be convicted for crimes committed by their subordinates.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Ituri-Bunia, Barnaba Yonga Tshopena case, Judgment, 9 July 2010, §§ 130 and 132.
Internment and assigned residence, whether in the occupying power’s national territory or in the occupied territory, are exceptional measures to be taken only after careful consideration of each individual case. Such measures are never to be taken on a collective basis.
ICTY, Mucić case, Judgment, 16 November 1998, § 578.
This defendant, like all others, deserves individualised consideration and can be convicted only if the evidence presented in court shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is guilty of acts that constitute crimes covered by the [1993 ICTY Statute].
ICTY, Krstić case, Judgment, 2 August 2001, § 2.
ICTY, Momir Nikolić case, Sentencing Judgment, 2 December 2003, § 83.
In the Obrenović case before the ICTY in 2002, the accused, Dragan Obrenović, an officer in the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS), was charged with complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, and persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds) and violations of the laws or customs of war (murder), for his alleged role in the events in the Srebrenica enclave in 1995.
ICTY, Obrenović case, Amended Joinder Indictment, 27 May 2002, §§ 34–59, Counts 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Following a plea agreement jointly filed by the accused and the Prosecution, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of persecutions. The Trial Chamber accepted the plea and dismissed the remaining charges.
ICTY, Obrenović case, Sentencing Judgment, 10 December 2003, §§ 10–11.
It is recalled that the basis of liability for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is individual criminal responsibility. An accused shall be held liable for his actions and omissions – no more and no less. In crimes as massive as those committed following the fall of Srebrenica, the Trial Chamber finds that it must be particularly vigilant in ensuring that its consideration of the gravity of the offence focuses on those acts or omissions of the individual accused for which he is personally responsible.
ICTY, Obrenović case, Sentencing Judgment, 10 December 2003, § 78.
In the Fofana and Kondewa case before the SCSL in 2004, the accused, senior members of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF), were charged with collective punishments as a violation of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II, punishable under Article 3(b) of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
SCSL, Fofana and Kondewa case, Indictment, 4 February 2004, § 28, Count 7.
[T]his Chamber takes a view that the prohibition of collective punishments in international humanitarian law is based on one of the most fundamental principles of domestic criminal law that is reflected in national systems around the world: the principle of individual responsibility. The principle of individual responsibility requires that, whether an accused be tried singly or jointly, a determination must be made as to the penal responsibility and appropriate punishment of each individual on trial.
SCSL, Fofana and Kondewa case, Judgment, 2 August 2007, §§ 178, footnote 222.
European Court of Human Rights, A.P., M.P. and T.P. v. Switzerland, Judgment, 29 August 1997, §§ 47–48.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The conviction must be pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include … individual and not collective penal responsibility”.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 202(b).
This subparagraph lays down the fundamental principle of individual responsibility; a corollary of this principle is that there can be no collective penal responsibility for acts committed by one or several members of a group. This principle is contained in every national legislation. It is already expressed in Article 33 of the fourth Convention, where it is more elegantly worded as follows: “No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed” … The wording was modified to meet the requirement of uniformity between the texts in the different languages and, in this particular case, with the English terminology (“individual penal responsibility”). Article 75, paragraph 4 (b), of Protocol I, lays down the same principle.
According to the Commentary, this does not exclude cases of complicity or incitement, which are punishable offences in themselves and may lead to a conviction.
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 4603.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 9(b), IRRC, No. 282, 1991, p. 334.

References: § 61
 § 33
 § 63
 § 41
 § 21
 § 29
 § 1121
 § 1716
 § 5
 § 3
 § 410
 § 32
 § 33
 § 8
 Art. 33
 § 647
 § 578
 § 2
 § 83
 § 78
 § 28
 v. 
 § 202
 § 4603