Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65_sectioni
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:34:46+00:00

Document:
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), in an article entitled “Perfidy”, imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict and with intent to harm or attack the adversary, simulates the condition of a protected person”, which includes civilians.
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Articles 135 and 143.
Article 37(1)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I lists “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” as an act of perfidy.
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 37(1)(c). Article 37 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Article 21(1) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided that “when carried out in order to commit or resume hostilities, … the feigning, before an attack, of non-combatant status” was considered as perfidy.
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, §§ 110(c) and 111(a).
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 826(c) (naval warfare) and § 902(c) (land warfare).
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(c) (land warfare); see also §§ 635(c) and 636(a) (naval warfare).
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … civilian or non-combatant status”.
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. 95; see also Part I bis, pp. 24 and 115.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that “feigning civilian or non-combatant status” is an example of perfidy.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 30, § 131.1, p. 63, § 234 and p. 90, § 222.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) lists “feigning the status of a civilian or non-combatant” as an “act of perfidy”.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 183, § 494.A; see also p. 222, § 222.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(c) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(c) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(d) (naval warfare).
It also considers it an act of perfidy in air warfare if a hostile act is committed while “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of civil aircraft”.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning civilian, non-combatant status”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.c (land warfare), 706.2.c (air warfare) and 857.2.d (naval warfare).
In the chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of civil aircraft”.
- feigning of civilian or non-combatant status.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 41–42; see also 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. 48.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, §§ 12.7 and 12.7.1.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) prohibits the simulation of non-combatant status.
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the feigning of being civilian” constitutes perfidy.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: feigning to possess the status of civilian or noncombatant”.
- the feigning of civilian or non-combatant status (e.g., as a carer of the wounded or a member of the Red Cross).
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) gives the following example of “perjury” (perfidy): “feigning civilian or non-combatant status”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(d).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states that the “use of civilian clothing … by troops engaged in a battle” is a war crime.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” is an example of perfidy.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.e.(9).(d).
In the context of air warfare, the manual also prohibits the following act as being perfidious: “Using a commercial flight or an overflight agreement to carry out a hostile operation, such as photographic or electronic reconnaissance, the activation of air defence systems or even a direct attack”.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 165.b.(1).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of civilian or non-combatant status” is an example of perfidy.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(e)(2)(d), p. 239.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 156(b)(1), p. 339.
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning civilian or non-combatant status” is an act of perfidy.
When planning and conducting combat operations it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between perfidy and ruses of war. Perfidy means committing a hostile act under the cover of a right to protection by feigning: … civilian or non-combatant status.
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) gives as an example of perfidy the prohibition “to feign civilian non-combatant status”.
The manual also considers the “use of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle” to be a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, §§ 39(f) and 41.
The manual also provides that the “[u]se of civilian clothing by troops to conceal their military character during battle” is a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime.
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 61(f).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that simulating the status of a civilian person or non-combatant is an example of a perfidious act.
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.b.(1) and § 5.3.c; see also § 7.3.c.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) prohibits the act of perfidy and states that “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” is an example of such an act.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(1).(c), 5.3.c and 7.3.c.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) mentions, as an example of perfidious conduct, “the feigning of protected civilian status”.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System , Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.1.b, p. 29.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that an example of perfidy is “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status”.
The UK Military Manual (1958) describes as treacherous the use of false assurances followed by firing, noting that this “device is often accompanied by the use of enemy uniforms or civilian clothing”.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 311, footnote 1.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(f).
According to the UK LOAC Manual (2004), “the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status” is an example of prohibited perfidy, “if done with intent to betray the enemy’s confidence”.
In its chapter on maritime warfare, the manual states that launching an attack while feigning civilian status is an example of perfidy.
that does not mean that it is authorized, since the treaty must be interpreted in the light of all the humanitarian principles. As stated in the Taormina Declaration, the prohibition of perfidy is one of the general rules governing the conduct of hostilities that applies in non-international armed conflicts.
In the Swarka case before an Israeli Military Court in 1974, the defendants had entered Israel from Egypt and launched rockets on a civilian settlement. When brought to trial, they claimed that they were entitled to prisoner of war status under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, since they were soldiers in the Egyptian regular army and had committed the actions on the orders of their commander. The Prosecutor argued that they could not benefit from POW status since they wore civilian clothes when they carried out their operations. The Court observed that neither the 1907 Hague Regulations nor the 1949 Geneva Conventions required that members of regular forces had to wear uniforms at the time of capture to be entitled to their protection. However, it considered that “it would be quite illogical to regard the duty of wearing uniform (in the sense of a distinctive sign) as imposed only on the quasi-military units referred to in Article 4(A)(2) [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III] and not on soldiers of regular military forces”. It concluded that the defendants were to be prosecuted as saboteurs.
Israel, Military Court, Swarka case, Judgment, 1974.
In 1968, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (United Kingdom) heard the appeals of two members of the Indonesian armed forces who had entered a non-military building in Singapore – which at the time formed part of Malaysia – wearing civilian clothes and had planted a bag containing explosives. The ensuing explosion had caused two deaths, and the accused had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Privy Council held that members of armed forces who committed acts of sabotage in territory under the control of opposing forces, when dressed in civilian clothes both at the time of the acts of sabotage and when arrested, were not entitled to be treated on capture as prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions but were subject to trial and punishment.
Malaysia, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (United Kingdom), Ali case, Judgment, 29 July 1968.
In the Nwaoga case before the Supreme Court of Nigeria in 1972, the appellant and two officers of the rebel Biafran army disguised in civilian clothes went to a town under the control of federal troops and killed an unarmed person. The appellant was convicted for murder. The Court held that rebels must not feign civilian status while engaging in military operations and that, in these circumstances (operation in disguise, not in the rebel army uniform but in plain clothes, thus appearing to be members of the peaceful private population), the appellant was liable to punishment under the Criminal Code since the “deliberate and intentional killing of an unarmed person living peacefully inside the Federal territory … is a crime against humanity, and even if committed during a civil war is in violation of the domestic law of the country, and must be punished”.
Nigeria, Supreme Court, Nwaoga case, Judgment, 3 March 1972.
Algeria, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.28, 4 March 1975, p. 262, § 13.
However, Algeria finally agreed upon paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37) in supporting the view of Viet Nam stated below.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/SR.47, 31 May 1976, p. 86, § 5.
According to the Report on the Practice of Algeria, the policy followed by Algerian combatants during the war of independence was summarized in the maxim “Djellaba le jour, uniforme la nuit” (“Djellaba by day, uniform by night”).
Report on the Practice of Algeria, 1997, Chapter 2.6, referring to El Moudjahid, Vol. 2, p. 381.
At the CDDH, Egypt, commenting on Article 44 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated that the right of the guerrilla fighter to be considered as a lawful combatant “did not release regular combatants from their obligation to wear their uniform during military operations, failing which they would be committing an act of perfidy”.
Egypt, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/SR.55, 22 April 1977, p. 160, § 28.
At the CDDH, Indonesia proposed deleting paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37).
Indonesia, Proposal of amendment to Article 35 of draft Additional Protocol I submitted to the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. III, CDDH/III/232, 25 February 1975, p. 164.
This proposal was the expression of the fear that paragraph 1(c) could be misused to punish combatants who would otherwise be entitled to the status of prisoner of war. However, Indonesia finally agreed upon paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37) following the same reasoning as the one of Viet Nam stated below.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/SR.47, 31 May 1976, pp. 85 and 86, § 4.
Israel, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 115.
At the CDDH, the Philippines, having in mind guerrilla warfare, supported the amendments proposed by Indonesia and Viet Nam to delete paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37) because “it would be basically unjust to brand the wearing of civilian clothing by a combatant as perfidy when such circumstances were brought about by the superior military strength of the aggressor”.
Philippines, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.28, 4 March 1975, p. 265, §§ 25 and 26.
However, the Philippines finally agreed upon paragraph 1(c) following the same reasoning as the one of Viet Nam stated below.
At the CDDH, Romania supported the amendments of Indonesia and Viet Nam proposing the deletion of paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37), “since the act covered by the provision could not be regarded as a typical case of perfidy”.
Romania, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.28, 4 March 1975, p. 270, § 52.
However, Romania finally agreed upon paragraph 1(c) following the same reasoning as the one of Viet Nam stated below.
International humanitarian law in force treats these cases in a relatively complete manner, binding non-State and State actors alike. Feigning to have protected civilian status or another protected status … in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary constitutes an act of perfidy contrary to international law.
At the CDDH, Viet Nam proposed deleting paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37).
Viet Nam, Proposal of amendment to Article 35 of draft Additional Protocol I submitted to the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. III, CDDH/III/236, 25 February 1975, p. 165.
lacked the necessary means to provide uniforms for members of their national forces or their rural and urban militia. To regard that state of affairs as perfidy would be to legislate against nations defending their right to self-determination. Logically speaking, the question was not one of perfidy, since that implied the intention to betray an adversary’s good faith.
Viet Nam, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.28, 4 March 1975, p. 260, § 7.
Viet Nam finally agreed upon Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I, after the introduction of the saving clause under Article 44(3), whereby the wearing of civilian clothes does not amount to perfidy when combatants fulfil the conditions to be recognized as legitimate combatants (in situations where the combatant cannot distinguish themselves from the civilian population, they retain their combatant status, provided that they carry their arms openly during each military engagement, and during such time as they are visible to the adversary while they are engaged in military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which they are to participate).
Viet Nam, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/SR.47, 31 May 1976, p. 86, § 5.
State practice shows that general principles of customary international law have evolved with regard to internal armed conflict also in areas relating to methods of warfare. In addition to what has been stated above, with regard to the ban on attacks on civilians in the theatre of hostilities, mention can be made of the prohibition of perfidy. Thus, for instance, in a case brought before Nigerian courts, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that rebels must not feign civilian status while engaging in military operations.
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, § 125.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “to pretend being a civilian or non-combatant” is an act of perfidy.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 409(d).

References: § 826
 § 902
 § 703
 § 131
 § 234
 § 222
 § 494
 § 222
 § 9
 § 17
 § 81
 § 12
 § 27
 § 165
 § 28
 § 156
 § 61
 § 3
 § 5
 § 7
 § 2
 § 311
 § 626
 § 13
 § 5
 § 28
 § 4
 § 52
 § 7
 § 5
 § 125
 § 409