Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/por/print/v2_rul_rule147_sectionc
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 14:46:08
Document Index: 788263458

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 961', '§ 9', '§ 13', '§ 71', '§ 443', '§ 1507', '§ 25', '§ 29', '§ 3', '§ 7', '§ 11', 'Art. 60']

Article 4(4) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides: “[The High Contracting Parties] shall refrain from any act directed by way of reprisals against cultural property.”
(c) to make such objects [historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples] the object of reprisals.
Section 6.9 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin, which deals under Section 6.6 with the protection of “monuments of art, architecture or history, archeological sites, works of art, places of worship and museums and libraries which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples”, states: “The United Nations force shall not engage in reprisals against objects and installations protected under this section.”
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) refers to Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and Article 16 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, as well as to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, and provides: “It remains absolutely prohibited … to make [cultural property] the object of reprisals.”
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994), under the heading “Protection of Cultural Objects and Places of Worship”, provides:
LOAC … extends immunity [from attack] to cultural property of great importance to cultural heritage. This is irrelevant of origin, ownership or whether the property is movable or immovable. LOAC requires such property to be protected, safeguarded and respected and not made the object of reprisals.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 961.
Referring, inter alia, to Articles 51–56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, as well as to Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the manual further states: “Protected buildings and facilities … should not be the subject of reprisals.”
Historic monuments, places of worship and works of art, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples, are protected from acts of hostility. These objects must not be … the subject of reprisals.
The manual further states: “[P]rotected buildings and facilities … should not be the subject of reprisals.”
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Historic monuments, places of worship and works of art, which constitute the cultural and spiritual heritage of peoples, are protected from acts of hostility. These objects must not be … the subject of reprisals.”
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.29; see also § 13.20.
Property protected by the [1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property] may not be made the object of reprisals. Therefore, [reprisals] may be directed only against combatants, non-protected property and a restricted group of non-protected civilians.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), in a part dealing with targeting, provides: “Reprisals against cultural objects and places of worship are forbidden.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-7, § 71.
In a part dealing with enforcement measures, the manual states: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited: … g. cultural objects and places of worship”.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting: “Reprisals against cultural objects and places of worship are forbidden.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 443.9.
g. cultural objects and places of worship;
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1507.4.g and 5.
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) provides for the prohibition of taking reprisals against “specifically protected … objects”.
The manual refers, inter alia, to Articles 51–56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and states: “Reprisals are prohibited against … property particularly protected”.
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) provides for the prohibition of reprisals against “specifically protected … objects”.
Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990) provides that a “reprisal is absolutely prohibited against protected persons and objects”.
According to the Report on the Practice of Indonesia:
The meaning of … the protected objects is not only referring to the Geneva Conventions … but also referring to the customary sources, such as the moral values which are generally recognized and exist among the international community, and other Conventions such as the Convention for the protection of the cultural property which [has] already [been] ratified by Indonesia.
Report on the Practice of Indonesia, 1997, Chapter 2.9.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991), providing for the prohibition of reprisals, inter alia, against “cultural property”, states: “The observance of international rules which expressly provide for the obligation to abide by them in any circumstances cannot be suspended by way of reprisals.”
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997 Précis No. 4, p. 2.
In a chapter dealing with reprisals, the manual provides that reprisals “are carried out only against combatants and military objectives … The Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] prohibit reprisals against … religious … buildings and equipment … cultural objects.”
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that reprisals against “specifically protected … property” are prohibited.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 25.c.(2).(d).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that reprisals against “specifically protected … property” are prohibited.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 29(c)(2)(d), p. 234.
Protection of Cultural Objects of High Cultural Value ([1977] Additional Protocol I Article 53) [General Cultural Objects]
- Such articles are historic monuments, works of art, etc of which the value is so self-evident that it does not necessary require any special identification.
- Make such objects the object of reprisals.
- This article applies to objects with important religious dedication independent of any cultural value, i.e. Objects that constitute the spiritual heritage of peoples.
- Such articles are places of worship; etc of which the value is so self-evident that it does not require any special identification.
- It is prohibited to;
- Parties to the Convention have a duty to refrain from any act of reprisal directed against cultural property.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996), referring to Articles 52 and 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, lists “cultural objects” among the persons and objects against whom/which the taking of reprisals is prohibited.
In another provision, the manual states:
Combatants must remember that it is prohibited to commit acts of hostility, to execute reprisals … against the property which constitutes the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, regardless of whether it is public or private property.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007), referring to Articles 52 and 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, lists “cultural property” among the objects against which the taking of reprisals is prohibited.
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.(5); see also § 7.3.b.(2).(a).
The manual additionally states that “reprisals are not permitted against … cultural property [and] places of worship”.
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, § 11.8.c.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987), referring, inter alia, to Article 53 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and Article 4 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, states: “By virtue of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, [reprisals] are prohibited with regard to … cultural property”.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 197(2).
Switzerland’s Regulation on the Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property (2013) states: “I may not engage in any kind of retaliation against CP [cultural property].”
Switzerland, Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property, Regulation 51.00705e, issued on the basis of Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, signed on 21 March 2013, entry into force on 1 July 2013, Rule No. 5.
Peru’s Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (2006) states: “In the event of an armed conflict, civilian and military and/or police personnel shall refrain from committing any act of hostility by way of reprisal … that directly affects the cultural property of the [Peruvian] nation and/or of any other State”.
Peru, Regulations to the General Law on the Cultural Heritage of the Nation, 2006, Article 78.
[Shall be punished] whoever, in the event of an armed conflict: a) attacks or makes the object of reprisals or the object of hostilities clearly recognizable cultural objects or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and upon which, by virtue of special agreements, protection is conferred, causing, as a consequence, extensive destruction of such objects, and provided that such objects are not situated in the immediate proximity of military objectives or are not used in support of the military effort of the adversary.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 613(1)(a).
Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits or orders to be committed any of the following acts shall be punished with four to six years’ imprisonment:
a) … [R]eprisals or hostile acts against cultural property or places of worship which are clearly identified and constitute cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples and which is protected by special agreements or cultural property under enhanced protection, causing extensive damage, as long as such property is not situated in the immediate proximity of military objectives and is not used in support of the enemy’s military effort.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 613(1)(a).
a. … [R]eprisals or hostile acts against cultural property or places of worship which are clearly identified and constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, as long as such property is not situated in the immediate proximity of military objectives and is not used in support of the enemy’s military effort;
2. When the … reprisal or hostile act … is against cultural property or places of worship which are protected by special agreements or are under enhanced protection … a higher sentence can be imposed.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 613(1)(a) and (2).
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust not make cultural property or places dedicated to religion, which are clearly identified and constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples, and to which an enhanced protection has been granted by special agreements … the object of reprisals.”
Switzerland’s Law on the Protection of Cultural Property (1966) contains a provision which states, inter alia: “Respect for cultural property involves … the prohibition of reprisals with regard to cultural property”.
- prohibiting reprisals against cultural property.
Poland, Proposal on a new Article 70 bis Additional Protocol I submitted to the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. III, CDDH/III/103, 1 October 1974, p. 313.
During hostilities, it is forbidden to resort to reprisals against … various categories of civilian property which are subject to special protection … The prohibition applies in respect of all weapons, including nuclear weapons. This rule had previously been established in a general manner by Art. 60(5) of the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties … A similar provision is set forth in paragraph 7 of the UN General Assembly resolution 2675 (XXV) … The prohibition of reprisals in these situations appears also in Principle 1, paragraph 6 of UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) on friendly relations. Even if, in that case, it relates to ius ad (or contra) bellum rather than jus in bello, it is nonetheless applicable to the second. It follows from the above that reprisals can, in no circumstances, be lawful against this category of targets.
Cultural property includes movable and immovable objects that are important to the cultural heritage of humanity, and the buildings in which they are stored or displayed. In the event of an Armed conflict cultural property is accorded special protection under international law. Not only are hostile acts against cultural property prohibited, but it is also forbidden to make use of such property in support of military operations or as a target of Reprisals. …
International humanitarian law does not include any general prohibition of reprisals. There are however numerous provisions that prohibit specific types of reprisal … Also prohibited are reprisals against certain specific objects such as cultural property and places of worship[.]
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 14, 29 and 37.
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), referring to Article 53(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated: “reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are specifically prohibited: … (g) Cultural objects and places of worship.”
In the Tadić case in 1995, the ICTY Appeals Chamber stated that Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property was part of customary law.