Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule99
Timestamp: 2018-04-26 17:23:14
Document Index: 306392186

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2516', '§ 2663', '§ 2643', '§ 2746', '§ 2663', '§ 2755', '§ 2757', '§ 2759', '§ 2760', '§ 2761', '§ 2762', '§ 2693', '§ 2697', '§ 2699', '§ 2700', '§ 2701', '§ 2517', '§ 2523', '§ 2529', '§ 2534', '§ 2535', '§ 2536', '§ 2537', '§ 2539', '§ 2541', '§ 2543', '§ 2544', '§ 2545', '§ 2546', '§ 2548', '§ 2549', '§ 2550', '§ 2551', '§ 2552', '§ 2553', '§ 2554', '§ 2626', '§ 2626', '§ 2626', '§ 2626', '§ 2626', '§ 2554', '§ 2555', '§ 2556', '§ 2559', '§ 2562', '§ 2563', '§ 2567', '§ 2572', '§ 2576', '§ 2579', '§ 2580', '§ 2593', '§ 2598', '§ 2600', '§ 2605', '§ 2606', '§ 2607', '§ 2611', '§ 2613', '§ 2615', '§ 2616', '§ 2624', '§ 2565', '§ 2608', '§ 2554', '§ 2566', '§ 2578', '§ 2584', '§ 2599', '§ 2536', '§ 2539', '§ 2543', '§ 2549', '§ 2629', '§ 2630', '§ 2633', '§ 2634', '§ 17', '§ 138', '§ 139', '§ 146', '§ 147', '§ 148', '§ 2635', '§ 2636', '§ 2519', '§ 2522', '§ 2518', '§ 2520', '§ 2521', '§ 2526', '§ 2527', '§ 2673', '§ 2528', '§ 2533', '§ 2519', '§ 2522', '§ 2520', '§ 2521', '§ 2644', '§ 2645', '§ 2526', '§ 2646', '§ 2649', '§ 2651', '§ 2647', '§ 3019', '§ 2735', '§ 2740', '§ 2743', '§ 2691', '§ 2690', '§ 2692', '§ 2712', '§ 2694', '§ 2710', '§ 2702', '§ 2705', '§ 2706', '§ 4', '§ 2695', '§ 2', '§ 2696', '§ 2720', '§ 2719', '§ 2721', '§ 2737', '§ 2724', '§ 2726', '§ 2729', '§ 2730', '§ 2731', '§ 2735', '§ 2741', '§ 2742', '§ 2743', '§ 2749', '§ 2748', '§ 2750', '§ 2752', '§ 2753', '§ 2764', '§ 2754', '§ 2776', '§ 2781', '§ 2782', '§ 2783', '§ 60', '§ 31', '§ 14', '§ 199', '§ 3276', '§ 48', '§ 83', '§ 3230']

1. Rules\Rule 99
•The First Geneva Convention regulates the detention or retention of medical and religious personnel.[2]
•The Second Geneva Convention regulates the detention or retention of medical and religious personnel of hospital ships.[3]
•The Third Geneva Convention is based on the long-standing custom that prisoners of war may be interned for the duration of active hostilities.[4] There are additional conditions in the Third Geneva Convention with respect to disciplinary punishments, judicial investigations and repatriation of seriously wounded or sick prisoners of war.[5]
•The Fourth Geneva Convention specifies that a civilian may only be interned or placed in assigned residence if “the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary” (Article 42) or, in occupied territory, for “imperative reasons of security” (Article 78).[6] In the Delalić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia interpreted Article 42 as permitting internment only if there are “serious and legitimate reasons” to think that the interned persons may seriously prejudice the security of the detaining power by means such as sabotage or espionage.[7]
The need for a valid reason for the deprivation of liberty concerns both the initial reason for such deprivation and the continuation of such deprivation. Detention which continues beyond that provided for by law is a violation of the principle of legality and amounts to arbitrary detention. This point was made by the UN Human Rights Committee and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in cases concerning persons who continued to be detained after their prison term was completed, [34] or despite an acquittal,[35] or despite an order for their release.[36]
(ii) Obligation to bring a person arrested on a criminal charge promptly before a judge. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European and American Conventions on Human Rights require the prompt appearance of a person who is arrested or detained before a judge or other officer authorized to exercise judicial power.[44] While the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights does not explicitly provide for this right, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has specified that it is part and parcel of the right to fair trial.[45] This requirement is also provided for in the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and the UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearance, both adopted by the UN General Assembly without a vote.[46] This rule is part of the domestic law of most, if not all, States in the world.[47] In its General Comment on Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that a prompt appearance means that “delays must not exceed a few days”.[48] There is now also significant case-law by regional human rights courts on the application of this principle during states of emergency.[49]
[1] Deprivation of liberty by neutral States is governed by Hague Conventions (V) and (XIII). Articles 11, 13 and 14 of Hague Convention (V) state the grounds for detention of belligerent persons by neutral States. Article 24 of Hague Convention (XIII) states the grounds for the detention of belligerent ships, their officers and crew by neutral States.
[2] First Geneva Convention, Articles 28, 30 and 32.
[3] Second Geneva Convention, Articles 36 and 37.
[4] Third Geneva Convention, Articles 21 and 118.
[5] Third Geneva Convention, Articles 90, 95, 103 and 109.
[6] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 42 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 2516) and Article 78 (ibid., § 2663).
[7] ICTY, Delalić case, Judgment (ibid., § 2643).
[8] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 43, first paragraph (ibid., § 2746).
[9] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 78 (ibid., §§ 2663 and 2747).
[10] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 2755–2756), Canada (ibid., § 2757), Germany (ibid., § 2759), New Zealand (ibid., § 2760), United Kingdom (ibid., § 2761) and United States (ibid., §§ 2762–2763).
[11] Third Geneva Convention, Articles 110 and 112.
[13] Third Geneva Convention, Articles 69 and 122–123; Fourth Geneva Convention, Articles 43, 105 and 136–137.
[14] Additional Protocol I, Article 75(3) (adopted by consensus) (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 2693).
[15] See, e.g., the military manuals of Canada (ibid., § 2697), New Zealand (ibid., § 2699), Sweden (ibid., § 2700) and Switzerland (ibid., § 2701).
[16] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 147 (ibid., § 2517).
[17] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(a)(vii) (ibid., § 2523); ICTY Statute, Article 2(g) (ibid., § 2529); UNTAET Regulation 2000/15, Section 6(1)(a)(vii) (ibid., § 2534).
[18] Elements of Crimes for the ICC, Definition of unlawful confinement as a war crime (ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(a)(vii)).
[19] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 2535), Australia (ibid., § 2536), Canada (ibid., § 2537), Croatia (ibid., § 2539), France (ibid., §§ 2541–2542), Germany (ibid., § 2543), Hungary (ibid., § 2544), Netherlands (ibid., § 2545), New Zealand (ibid., § 2546), Nigeria (ibid., § 2548), South Africa (ibid., § 2549), Switzerland (ibid., § 2550), Uganda (ibid., § 2551), United Kingdom (ibid., § 2552) and United States (ibid., § 2553).
[20] See, e.g., the legislation (ibid., §§ 2554–2625).
[21] See, e.g., Netherlands, Temporary Court-Martial at Makassar, Motomura case and Notomi Sueo case (ibid., § 2626); Netherlands, Special Court (War Criminals) at The Hague and Special Court of Cassation, Rauter case (ibid., § 2626); Netherlands Special Court in Amsterdam and Special Court of Cassation, Zühlke case (ibid., § 2626); United Kingdom, Military Court at Lüneberg, Auschwitz and Belsen case (ibid., § 2626); United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Pohl case (ibid., § 2626).
[22] See, e.g., the legislation (ibid., §§ 2554–2625).
[23] See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 2555), Australia (ibid., § 2556), Azerbaijan (ibid., § 2559), Belgium (ibid., § 2562), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 2563), Cambodia (ibid., § 2567), Democratic Republic of the Congo (ibid., § 2572), Croatia (ibid., § 2576), Ethiopia (ibid., § 2579), Georgia (ibid., § 2580), Moldova (ibid., § 2593), Nicaragua (ibid., § 2598), Niger (ibid., § 2600), Paraguay (ibid., § 2605), Poland (ibid., § 2606), Portugal (ibid., § 2607), Slovenia (ibid., § 2611), Spain (ibid., § 2613), Sweden (ibid., § 2615), Tajikistan (ibid., § 2616) and Yugoslavia (ibid., § 2624); see also the legislation of Bulgaria (ibid., § 2565) and Romania (ibid., § 2608), the application of which is not excluded in time of non-international armed conflict, and the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 2554), Burundi (ibid., § 2566), El Salvador (ibid., § 2578), Jordan (ibid., § 2584) and Nicaragua (ibid., § 2599).
[24] See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia (ibid., § 2536), Croatia (ibid., § 2539), Germany (ibid., § 2543) and South Africa (ibid., § 2549).
[25] UN Security Council, Res. 1019 and 1034 (ibid., § 2629) and Res. 1072 (ibid., § 2630).
[26] UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193 (ibid., § 2633) and Res. 55/116 (ibid., § 2634). Resolution 50/193 was adopted by 114 votes in favour, one against and 20 abstentions. However, the explanation of the Russian Federation, which voted against the resolution, shows that it did not object to the principle of condemning unlawful detention but thought that the resolution was too one-sided; see the statement by the Russian Federation in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/50/SR.58, 14 December 1995, § 17. Resolution 55/116 was adopted by 85 votes in favour, 32 against and 49 abstentions. In explanations given by Canada, Bangladesh, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Thailand and the United States, there is no indication that there was a disagreement on the principle which is under discussion here; see the explanations of vote of these States given in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, 10 October 2000, UN Doc. A/C.3/55/SR.55, 29 November 2000, § 138 (Canada), § 139 (United States), § 146 (Bangladesh), § 147 (Thailand) and § 148 (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya).
[27] UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/71 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 2635) and Res. 1996/73 (ibid., § 2636).
[28] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(1) (ibid., §§ 2519 and 2665); Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(b) (ibid., §§ 2522 and 2668) (no general reference to liberty and security of person; limited to requirement of arrest, detention or imprisonment in conformity with law); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1) (ibid., §§ 2518 and 2664); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 7 (ibid., §§ 2520 and 2666); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 6 (ibid., §§ 2521 and 2667).
[29] See, e.g., Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 3 (ibid., § 2526); American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, Articles I and XXV (ibid., §§ 2527 and 2672); Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 2 (ibid., § 2673); Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Article 20 (ibid., § 2528); EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 6 (ibid., § 2533).
[30] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(1) (ibid., § 2519); Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(b) (ibid., § 2522); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 7(3) (ibid., § 2520); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 6 (ibid., § 2521).
[31] European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1); see also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8 (Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 2644) (the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty applies to all such deprivations, “whether in criminal cases or in other cases such as, e.g., mental illness, vagrancy, drug addiction, educational purposes, immigration control, etc.”).
[32] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 (Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 2645).
[33] See, e.g., Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Article 9 (ibid., § 2526).
[34] UN Human Rights Committee, García Lanza de Netto v. Uruguay (ibid., § 2646); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Pagnoulle v. Cameroon (ibid., § 2649).
[35] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Constitutional Rights Project v. Nigeria (148/96) (ibid., § 2651).
[36] UN Human Rights Committee, Torres Ramírez v. Uruguay (ibid., § 2647).
[37] With respect to the obligation to inform a person who is arrested of the reasons for arrest, see e.g., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights (ibid., § 3019), Doctrine concerning judicial guarantees and the right to personal liberty and security, reprinted in Ten years of activities (1971–1981), Washington, D.C., 1982, p. 337. With respect to the obligation to bring a person arrested on a criminal charge promptly before a judge, see, e.g., Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8 (ibid., § 2735); European Court of Human Rights, Aksoy v. Turkey (ibid., 2742) and Brogan and Others case (ibid., § 2740); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo Petruzzi and Others case, (ibid., § 2743).
[38] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(2) (ibid., § 2691); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(2) (ibid., § 2690); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 7(4) (ibid., § 2692).
[39] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial (ibid., § 2712).
[40] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 10 (ibid., § 2694).
[41] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8 (Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 2710).
[42] See, e.g., the legislation of India (ibid., § 2702), Spain (ibid., § 2705) and Zimbabwe (ibid., § 2706).
[43] Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, § 4 (ibid., § 2695); Agreement on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, § 2.3 (ibid., § 2696).
[44] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(3) (ibid., § 2720); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(3) (ibid., § 2719); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 7(5) (ibid., § 2721).
[45] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial (ibid., § 2737).
[46] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principles 11 and 37 (ibid., §§ 2724–2725); UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearance, Article 10 (ibid., § 2726).
[47] See, e.g., the legislation of India (ibid., § 2729), Myanmar (ibid., § 2730) and Uganda (ibid., § 2731).
[48] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8 (Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 2735).
[49] See European Court of Human Rights, Brannigan and McBride v. UK (delay of up to seven days not found to be excessive because the detainees were allowed to consult a lawyer, contact a family member or friend and to be examined by a doctor within 48 hours) (ibid., § 2741) and Aksoy v. Turkey (delay of 14 days incommunicado detention found to be excessive) (ibid., § 2742); Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Castillo Petruzzi and Others case (delay of 36 days found to be excessive) (ibid., § 2743).
[50] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4) ( ibid., § 2749); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(4) (ibid., § 2748); American Convention on Human Rights, Article 7(6) (ibid., § 2750).
[51] American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, Article XXV (ibid., § 2752); Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 32 (ibid., § 2753).
[52] See, e.g., the legislation of the Russian Federation (ibid., § 2764).
[53] Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines, Part II, Article 5 (ibid., § 2754).
[54] UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 (Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) (ibid., § 2776).
[55] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Habeas Corpus case (ibid., § 2781) and Judicial Guarantees case (ibid., § 2782); see also Neira Alegría and Others case (ibid., § 2783).
[56] African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication Nos. 48/90, 50/91, 52/91 and 89/93, Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan, Decision, 26th Session, Kigali, 1–15 November 1999, § 60; Communication Nos. 143/95 and 159/96, Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, 26th Session, Kigali, 1–15 November 1999, §§ 31 and 34.
[57] European Court of Human Rights, Lawless case, Judgment (Merits), 1 July 1961, § 14; Ireland v. UK, Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction), 18 January 1978, §§ 199–200.
[58] See, e.g., UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the report of Senegal (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 32, § 3276); UN Committee against Torture, Report of the Committee against Torture on the Situation in Turkey, UN Doc. A/48/44/Add.1, 15 November 1993, § 48; European Court of Human Rights, Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment, 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, § 83.
[59] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 17 (ibid., § 3230).