Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule47_sectionb
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:43:12
Document Index: 642719949

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 11', '§ 8', '§ 6', '§ 8', '§ 15', '§ 17', '§ 7', '§ 17', '§ 4', '§ 111', '§ 389', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 14', '§ 12', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 159', '§ 172', '§ 173', '§ 1', '§ 101', '§ 6', '§ 106', '§ 5', '§ 107', '§ 65', '§ 381', '§ 595', '§ 52', '§ 874', '§ 142', '§ 16', '§ 102', '§ 3', '§ 156', '§ 189', '§ 244', '§ 182', '§ 9', '§ 184', '§ 185', '§ 487', '§ 5', '§ 15']

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).
Article 41 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender;
c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
Article 7(1) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided:
It is forbidden to kill, injure, ill-treat or torture an adversary hors de combat. An adversary hors de combat is one who, having laid down his arms, no longer has any means of defence or has surrendered. These conditions are considered to have been fulfilled, in particular, in the case of an adversary who:
a) is unable to express himself, or
b) has surrendered or has clearly expressed an intention to surrender
c) and abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
The text adopted provided:
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.
a) he is in the power of an adverse party; or
c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and he is therefore incapable of defending himself;
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).
Article 71 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides:
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).
Article 9(b) of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden … [t]o injure or kill an enemy who has surrendered at discretion or is disabled.”
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).
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) states: “It is prohibited to kill or injure an enemy who has laid down his arms or who is defenceless and has surrendered.”
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 1.006.
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) prohibits:
making an enemy hors de combat the object of an attack, understood as any person who:
1) is in the power of his enemy.
2) clearly expresses his intention to surrender.
3) is incapable of defending himself.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “It is prohibited to kill or injure an adversary who surrenders.”
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.
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”.
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”.
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.
The following acts constitute war crimes:
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’s Soldiers’ Manual states: “A person wounded or sick is hors de combat.”
The manual also instructs: “Do not kill … enemies who have laid down their arms and surrendered.”
According to Ethiopia’s Standing Rules of Engagement (2007), “wounded and sick enemy soldiers” do not constitute military objectives.
Ethiopia, Standing Rules of Engagement, National Defense Force, Addis Ababa, 2007, § 8.4.2.
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Enemy combatants who surrender”, states: “Spare them.”
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 4.
Under the heading “Distinctive signs” and in a section on “Flag of … combatants who surrender”, the manual also states: “Respect those bearing … these signs.”
Under the heading “Rules of conduct in combat”, the manual also states:
4. Do not fight enemies hors de combat or those who surrender. …
5. … [P]rotect … the wounded and sick.
Military personnel in combat are prohibited from:
- firing on, wounding or killing an enemy who surrenders or who is captured or with whom a ceasefire has been agreed;
- refusing an unconditional surrender.
Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990) states: “It is prohibited to kill or injure the enemy who has surrendered.”
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, § 15(b)3.
It is prohibited to attack:
a. Enemy ships which are obviously intending to surrender;
b. Shipwrecked crew, including the crew of military air craft of the adverse party.
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’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “A combatant who is recognized (or should be recognized) as being hors de combat shall not be attacked (surrendering, wounded, shipwrecked …). The intent to surrender can be shown with a white flag.”
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 7-O, § 17; see also Fiche No. 5-T, § 4.
The manual adds: “Captured enemy combatants, whether having surrendered or not, are prisoners of war and shall no longer be attacked.”
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-SO, § A.
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.
The manual also states: “It is prohibited to: … kill or wound persons who have surrendered at discretion.”
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 389(C)
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states that “members of enemy forces who surrender … must not be attacked.”
The manual also states: “Do not attack or harm enemies who surrender.”
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”.
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) states: “Soldiers who surrender will not be killed.”
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).
The Republic of Korea’s Military Law Manual (1996) states that combatants who are disabled shall not be attacked.
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.
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.
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”.
It is prohibited to attack an enemy who is hors de combat:
a)because he is in the power of an adverse party;
b) because he clearly expresses his intention to 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).
It is prohibited to attack those persons who are out of action or hors de combat because they:
a. are in the power of an adverse party;
b. clearly express an intention to surrender;
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).
The [1907 Hague Regulations] and [the 1949] Geneva Conventions include rules intended to afford protection to combatants in situations where they have laid down their arms or are no longer capable of defending themselves … or where combatants have become sick, are wounded, shipwrecked or captured. These fundamental rules have not always been applied in combat situations, and for this reason it has been considered necessary to reaffirm certain of the older provisions to assert their fundamental importance …
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.
The manual adds: “The life of an individual who surrenders must be spared. During the Second World War, and subsequent conflicts, this rule has been frequently violated.”
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’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states: “I spare persons that surrender or are hors de combat.”
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.
The Aide-Memoire also states with regard to the white flag:
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”.
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.
- attacks against persons who have been shipwrecked …
1.4.10. All parties to an internal armed conflict shall provide protection to:
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.
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993), under the heading “Enemy prisoners”, states: “Spare them.”
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.
The Code of Conduct also states: “Persons not directly taking part in hostilities and those put out of action through sickness, injury, captivity or any other cause must be respected and protected against the effects of war.”
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’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides: “Any combatant who commits an act of violence against a sick or wounded defenceless soldier shall be liable to life imprisonment.”
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).
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.
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) punishes “whosoever, in time of war … kills or wounds an enemy who has surrendered or laid down his arms, or for any other reason is incapable of defending, or has ceased to defend, himself”.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 287(a).
(a) kills or wounds an enemy who has surrendered or laid down his arms, or who for any other reason is incapable of defending, or has ceased to defend, himself; or…
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).
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.
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any soldier “who maltreats an enemy who … is defenceless”.
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).
Spain’s Royal Ordinance for the Armed Forces (1978) states: “The combatant shall not refuse the unconditional surrender of the enemy.”
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.
Any person who has killed or injured an enemy who has surrendered or who has otherwise ceased to defend himself,
The Regulations on Disciplinary Penalties (2000) of the United Arab Emirates provides:
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.
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”.
In its judgment in the Military Junta case in 1985, Argentina’s National Court of Appeals established that, in a situation of internal violence, “the combatants incapacitated by sickness or wounds shall not be killed and shall be given quarter”.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
In 1970, in a report on respect for human rights in armed conflict, the UN Secretary-General stated that the clarification of the rule prohibiting the killing or wounding of an enemy who surrenders should be made on the basis of the following principles:
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.
In 1993, the UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador examined, inter alia, a case concerning the killing of two soldiers wounded after a US helicopter was shot down by a Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) patrol. The survivors of the crash had been left on the scene, but shortly afterwards, a member of the patrol was sent back and killed the two wounded men. According to the report,
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.
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.
In 1998, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, South Africa stated on behalf of SADC that the 1998 ICC Statute “would also serve as a reminder that even during armed conflict the rule of law must be upheld. For example, it was unlawful … for a combatant who had surrendered, having laid down his arms, to be killed or wounded … [This act] was a war crime and would be punished.”
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”.
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.
In 1982, in a communication received by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was alleged that Bolivian regiments
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.
In 1991, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reported the case of the killing of two soldiers wounded after a US helicopter was shot down by a Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) patrol in El Salvador. According to information obtained by the Commission,
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 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights emphasized that:
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 petitioners produced a videotape which depicted attempted surrender. The Commission considered that:
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.
Combatants who are captured (with or without surrender) are prisoners of war and shall no longer be attacked …
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 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated: Combatants and other persons who are captured, and those who have laid down their arms … shall be handed over to their immediate military superior and shall not, in particular, be killed or ill-treated.”
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”.
In a communication to the press issued in 2000 in the context of the conflict in Colombia, the ICRC condemned two separate incidents in which “wounded combatants being evacuated by its delegates were seized and summarily executed by men belonging to enemy forces. These acts … constitute grave breaches of international humanitarian law.”
In a communication to the press issued in 2001 in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, the ICRC stated: “A fighter who clearly indicates his intention to surrender to an enemy is no longer a legitimate target and is entitled to the protection afforded him by the law.”
In their commentary on the 1977 Additional Protocols, Bothe, Partsch and Solf state: “Under customary rules, protection from attack begins when the individual has ceased to fight, when his unit has surrendered, or when he is no longer capable of resistance either because he has been overpowered or is weaponless.”
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.
In 1985, in a report on violations of the laws of war in Nicaragua, Americas Watch stated: “The following … are prohibited by applicable international law rules: … Attacks against combatants who are captured [or] surrender.”
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 further found that “in combination, the contra forces have systematically violated the applicable laws of war throughout the conflict. They … have murdered those placed hors de combat by their wounds.”
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.
In 1986, in a report on human rights in Nicaragua, Americas Watch stressed: “In several years of armed struggle, neither the FDN [one of the contra groups] nor its predecessor organizations took prisoners. A recently published book explicitly describes the FDN practice of murdering enemy soldiers placed hors de combat.”
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”.
Rwandan Press Agency
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.