Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter42_rule150
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 16:14:23
Document Index: 108573161

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 86', '§ 80', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 157', '§ 351', '§ 1', '§ 310', '§ 301', '§ 304', '§ 230', '§ 326', '§ 460', '§ 471', '§ 463', '§ 467', '§ 335', '§ 472', '§ 473', '§ 345', '§ 476', '§ 477', '§ 470', '§ 470', '§ 110', '§ 125', '§ 113', '§ 115', '§ 116', '§ 119', '§ 148', '§ 121', '§ 123', '§ 127', '§ 128', '§ 130', '§ 133', '§ 135', '§ 138', '§ 139', '§ 140', '§ 141', '§ 143', '§ 158', '§ 263', '§ 211', '§ 214', '§ 220', '§ 224', '§ 226', '§ 227', '§ 235', '§ 237', '§ 238', '§ 242', '§ 243', '§ 244', '§ 245', '§ 246', '§ 247', '§ 248', '§ 249', '§ 250', '§ 251', '§ 252', '§ 325', '§ 352', '§ 353', '§ 353', '§ 328', '§ 350', '§ 90', '§ 93', '§ 94', '§ 95', '§ 98', '§ 304', '§ 315', '§ 330', '§ 317', '§ 130', '§ 333', '§ 248', '§ 248', '§ 276', '§ 281', '§ 179', '§ 183', '§ 219', '§ 229', '§ 336', '§ 229', '§ 329', '§ 330', '§ 331', '§ 334', '§ 110', '§ 125', '§ 190', '§ 191', '§ 192', '§ 194', '§ 195', '§ 196', '§ 197', '§ 198', '§ 199', '§ 200', '§ 203', '§ 204', '§ 209', '§ 195', '§ 191', '§ 192', '§ 193', '§ 192', '§ 193', '§ 203', '§ 204', '§ 194', '§ 194', '§ 102', '§ 157', '§ 162', '§ 107', '§ 14', '§ 24', '§ 79', '§ 80', '§ 87', '§ 96', '§ 356', '§ 303', '§ 312', '§ 314', '§ 316', '§ 156', '§ 319', '§ 318', '§ 152', '§ 154', '§ 184', '§ 212', '§ 215', '§ 233', '§ 213', '§ 232', '§ 241', '§ 153', '§ 156', '§ 253', '§ 254', '§ 255', '§ 258', '§ 262', '§ 360', '§ 154', '§ 357', '§ 358', '§ 318', '§ 365', '§ 346', '§ 348', '§ 258']

1. Rules\Rule 150
Chapter 42 (current)
(i) Reparation provided on the basis of inter-State and other agreements. Under a number of agreements concluded in the aftermath of the Second World War, Germany was obliged to restitute to victims stolen property such as jewellery, precious household goods and other household effects, and cultural property. [31]
Various specific funds have been created in the recent past with a mandate to award compensation to individuals. Examples include the Austrian Reconciliation Fund and the German Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future”, both established by national legislation on the basis of agreements concluded by Austria and Germany with the United States. The Austrian Reconciliation Fund was created “to make a contribution toward reconciliation, peace, and cooperation through a voluntary gesture of the Republic of Austria to natural persons who were coerced into slave labour or forced labour by the National Socialist regime on the territory of the present day Republic of Austria”. The German Foundation was set up in order to “make financial compensation available … to former forced labourers and those affected by other injustices from the National Socialist period”.[38]
(i) Restitution. In the case of Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights stated that there was a legal obligation for a violating State to put an end to the breach and to “make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (restitutio in integrum)”. However, it also stated that if this was in practice impossible, the State that ought to make reparation was to choose another means in order to comply with the judgment. [64]
More recently, the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law in the Philippines provides for “rehabilitation” as a possible form of reparation.[76] The requirement to establish the truth through investigation and to bring perpetrators to justice was stressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in a case concerning the murder of Archbishop Romero by death squads in El Salvador in 1980. The Commission established, inter alia, that El Salvador was responsible for:
[1] PCIJ, Chorzów Factory case (Merits) (cited in Vol. II. Ch. 42, § 102); see also PCIJ Statute, Article 36, which states that “the States Parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: … (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation”. Article 36 of the ICJ Statute contains similar wording.
[2] Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 31 (ibid., § 86).
[3] Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Article 38 (ibid., § 80).
[4] First Geneva Convention, Article 51 (ibid., § 2); Second Geneva Convention, Article 52 (ibid., § 2); Third Geneva Convention, Article 131 (ibid., § 2); Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 148 (ibid., § 2).
[5] Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 34 (ibid., § 157).
[6] International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 35 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (ibid., § 351).
[7] First Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, §§ 1 and 3 (ibid., § 310).
[8] Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany (ibid., §§ 301–302); Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (ibid., §§ 304–309).
[9] Poland, Statement before the Special Political Committee of the UN General Assembly (ibid., § 230).
[10] Hungary, Military Manual (ibid., § 326).
[11] See the statement of Germany (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 12, § 460).
[12] See the statement of the United Arab Emirates (ibid., § 471).
[13] See the practice of Iraq (ibid., §§ 463–464 and 466) and Kuwait (ibid., §§ 467–468) and the reported practice of Kuwait (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 42, § 335).
[14] UN Security Council, Res. 686 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 12, § 472) and Res. 1284 (ibid., § 473); see also Res. 687 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 42, § 345).
[15] See UN Secretary-General, Further report on the status of compliance by Iraq with the obligations placed upon it under certain of the Security Council resolutions relating to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 12, § 476) and Second report pursuant to paragraph 14 of resolution 1284 (1999) (ibid., § 477).
[16] See the reported practice of Belgium (ibid., § 470) and the Russian Federation (ibid., § 470).
[17] 1907 Hague Convention (IV), Article 3 (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 42, § 110); Additional Protocol I, Article 91 (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 125).
[18] See, e.g., Peace Treaty for Japan (ibid., §§ 113–114); Yoshida-Stikker Protocol between Japan and the Netherlands (ibid., § 115); Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation (ibid., §§ 116–118); Luxembourg Agreement between Germany and Israel (ibid., §§ 119–120); Luxembourg Agreement between Germany and the CJMC (ibid., §§ 148–149); Austrian State Treaty (ibid., § 121); Agreement concerning Payments on behalf of Norwegian Nationals Victimized by National Socialist Persecution (ibid., § 123); Implementation Agreement to the German Unification Treaty (ibid., § 127); US-Germany Agreement concerning Final Benefits to Certain US Nationals Who Were Victims of National Socialist Measures of Persecution (also known as the “Princz Agreement”) (ibid., §§ 128–129); Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords (ibid., §§ 130–132); US-Chinese Agreement on the Settlement of Chinese Claims resulting from the Bombardment of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and US-Chinese Memorandum of Understanding on the Settlement of US Claims resulting from the Bombardment of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (ibid., §§ 133–134); Agreement on the Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future” concluded between Germany and the United States (ibid., §§ 135–137); Austrian-US Executive Agreement concerning the Austrian Reconciliation Fund (ibid., § 138); Bilateral agreements between Austria and six Central and Eastern European States (ibid., § 139); Peace Agreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia (ibid., § 140); Washington Agreement between France and the United States (ibid., §§ 141–142); Annex A to the Austrian-US Agreement concerning the Austrian General Settlement Fund (ibid., §§ 143–144).
[19] Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 36 (ibid., § 158).
[20] International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 36 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (ibid., § 263). As to whether the damage is financially assessable in order to be compensated, the commentary states that “compensable personal injury encompasses not only associated material losses, such as loss of earnings and earning capacity, medical expenses and the like, but also non-material damage suffered by the individual (sometimes, though not universally, referred to as ‘moral damage’ in national legal systems). Non-material damage is generally understood to encompass loss of loved ones, pain and suffering as well as the affront to sensibilities associated with an intrusion on the person, home or private life.”
[21] See, e.g., the practice of Canada (ibid., § 211), China (ibid., § 214), Iraq (ibid., § 220), Kuwait (ibid., § 224), Lebanon, speaking on behalf of the Group of Arab States (ibid., § 226), Mexico (ibid., § 227), Syrian Arab Republic (ibid., § 235), United Kingdom (ibid., § 237) and United States (ibid., § 238).
[22] See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 387 (ibid., § 242), Res. 455 (ibid., § 243), Res. 471 (ibid., § 244), Res. 527 (ibid., § 245), Res. 571 (ibid., § 246), Res. 687 (ibid., § 247), Res. 692 (ibid., § 248) and Res. 827 (ibid., § 249); UN General Assembly, Res. 50/22 C (ibid., § 250), Res. 51/233 (ibid., § 251) and Res. 56/83 (ibid., § 252).
[23] International Law Commission, Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 37 (ibid., § 325). The commentary on Article 36 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (ibid., § 352) explains that satisfaction “is concerned with non-material injury, specifically non-material injury to the State, on which a monetary value can be put only in a highly approximate and notional way”. The commentary on Article 37 explains that “satisfaction … is the remedy for those injuries, not financially assessable, which amount to an affront [to the State]” (ibid., § 353).
[24] International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 37 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (ibid., § 353).
[25] United States, Field Manual (ibid., § 328).
[26] Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 30.
[27] Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Article 33(2).
[28] International Law Commission, Commentary on Article 33 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility (cited in Vol. II. Ch. 42, § 350).
[29] See the practice of Croatia (ibid., § 90) and United States (ibid., § 93).
[30] UN General Assembly, Res. 48/153 (ibid., § 94) and Res. 49/196 (ibid., § 95); see also UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/70 (ibid., § 98).
[31] See Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation, Chapter 3, Article 2 (ibid., § 304); Protocol No. 1 of the Luxembourg Agreement between Germany and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany (ibid., § 315); see also the legislation of Germany (ibid., § 330).
[32] See Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords, Articles VII and XI (ibid., § 317).
[33] See Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords, Articles I and XII(2) (ibid., §§ 130–132).
[34] See the practice of Canada (ibid., § 333).
[35] See, e.g., UNCC, Governing Council, Decision 3 (ibid., §§ 248 and 272) and Decision 11 (ibid., §§ 248 and 274).
[36] UNCC, Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning Part One of the Second Instalment of Claims for Serious Personal Injury or Death (ibid., § 276).
[37] To date, the Commission, ruling on claims brought by Eritrea and Ethiopia on behalf of their nationals respectively, has awarded compensation related to the treatment of former prisoners of war by the two States, see Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s and Ethiopia’s Claims, Partial Awards (ibid., § 281).
[38] See the legislation of Austria (ibid., § 179) and Germany (ibid., § 183).
[39] ICC Statute, Article 79, which states that “(1) A Trust Fund shall be established by decision of the Assembly of States Parties for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and of the families of such victims. (2) The Court may order money and other property collected through fines or forfeiture to be transferred, by order of the Court, to the Trust Fund. (3) The Trust Fund shall be managed according to criteria to be determined by the Assembly of States Parties.”
[40] See the practice of Germany (cited in Vol. II. Ch. 42, § 219) and Norway (ibid., § 229); “On behalf of victims of pseudo-medical experiments: Red Cross action”, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 142, 1973, pp. 3–21.
[41] See the practice of Japan (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 42, §§ 336–339) and Norway (ibid., § 229).
[42] See the legislation of Austria (ibid., § 329), Germany (ibid., § 330) and United States (ibid., § 331).
[43] See the practice of France (ibid., § 334).
[44] Hague Convention (IV), Article 3 (ibid., § 110); Additional Protocol I, Article 91 (ibid., § 125).
[45] See, e.g., Germany, Administrative Court of Appeal of Münster, Personal Injuries case (ibid., § 190); Germany, Federal Supreme Court, Reparation Payments case (ibid., § 191); Germany, Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, Forced Labour case (ibid., § 192); Germany, Federal Supreme Court, Distomo case, (ibid., 193); Greece, Court of First Instance of Leivadia, Prefecture of Voiotia case (ibid., § 194); Japan, Tokyo District Court, Shimoda case (ibid., § 195); Japan, Tokyo High Court and Supreme Court, Siberian Detainees case (ibid., § 196); Japan, Tokyo District Court and Tokyo High Court, Apology for the Kamishisuka Slaughter of Koreans case (ibid., § 197); Japan, Tokyo District Court, Ex-Allied Nationals Claims case, Dutch Nationals Claims case and Filippino “Comfort Women” Claims case (ibid., § 198); Japan, Fukuoka District Court, Zhang Baoheng and Others case (ibid., § 199); Japan, Yamaguchi Lower Court and Hiroshima High Court, Ko Otsu Hei Incidents case (ibid., § 200); United States, Court of Appeals (Fourth Circuit), Goldstar case (ibid., § 203); United States, District Court for the District of Columbia and Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Princz case (ibid., § 204); United States, District Court for the District of Columbia, Comfort Women case (ibid., § 209).
[46] Japan, Tokyo District Court, Shimoda case (ibid., § 195).
[47] See Germany, Federal Supreme Court, Reparation Payments case (ibid., § 191).
[48] Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (“Two-Plus-Four-Treaty”) between the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States, 12 September 1990.
[49] See, e.g., Germany, Constitutional Court, Forced Labour case (cited in Vol. II. Ch. 42, § 192); Germany, Federal Supreme Court, Distomo case (ibid., § 193).
[50] Germany, Constitutional Court, Forced Labour case (ibid., § 192).
[51] Germany, Federal Supreme Court, Distomo case (ibid., § 193).
[52] United States, Court of Appeals, Goldstar case (ibid., § 203).
[53] United States, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Princz case (ibid., § 204).
[54] Greece, Court of First Instance of Leivadia and Supreme Court, Prefecture of Voiotia case (ibid., § 194); Greece, Statement before the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou and Others case (ibid., § 194).
[55] See, e.g., PCIJ, Chorzów Factory case (Merits) (ibid., § 102); see also PCIJ Statute, Article 36, which states that “the States Parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: … (d) the nature of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation”. Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice contains similar wording.
[56] Article 34 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility provides that “full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation or satisfaction, either singly or in combination” (ibid., §§ 157 and 323). In addition, it should be noted that Article 75(2) of the ICC Statute concerning “Reparations to victims” gives the Court the power to “make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation”.
[57] See, e.g., Colombia, Basic Military Manual (ibid., § 162); American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (ibid., §§ 107, 292 and 362). It should be noted that diplomatic protection would still be possible in a situation where foreign residents or visitors are injured by the armed forces of a State in the context of a non-international armed conflict.
[58] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2(3); European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13; American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 10 and 25; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 7(1)(a) (implicit).
[59] See, e.g., UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 (Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 24 July 2001, § 14; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judicial Guarantees case, Advisory Opinion, §§ 24–26.
[60] ICC Statute, Article 75(6) (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 42, § 79).
[61] Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, Article 38 (ibid., § 80).
[62] Philippines, Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (ibid., § 87).
[63] UN General Assembly, Res. 51/108 (ibid., § 96).
[64] European Court of Human Rights, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (ibid., § 356). The Court’s powers to provide “just satisfaction” are based on the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 41 (ibid., § 303). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has similar powers to provide “fair compensation” on the basis of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 63(1) (ibid., § 312). The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights will have powers to order “the payment of fair compensation or reparation” on the basis of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 27 (ibid., § 314).
[65] Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords, Article I(1) (ibid., § 316).
[66] UNMIK Regulation No. 2000/60, Section 2(2), (5) and (6) (ibid., § 156). The Housing and Property Claims Commission was established by UNMIK Regulation No. 1999/23 (ibid., § 319).
[67] Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines, Part III, Article 2(3) (ibid., § 318).
[68] See Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala, Article VIII (ibid., § 152); Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines, Part III, Article 2(3) (ibid., § 154); the legislation of the Russian Federation (ibid., § 184).
[69] See the practice of Chile (ibid., § 212), El Salvador (ibid., § 215) and Sri Lanka (ibid., §§ 233–234).
[70] See the practice of Chile (ibid., § 213).
[71] See the practice of Rwanda (ibid., § 232) and Zimbabwe (ibid., § 241).
[72] Agreement on Refugees and Displaced Persons annexed to the Dayton Accords, Article XI (ibid., § 153).
[73] UNMIK Regulation No. 2000/60, Section 2(2) (ibid., § 156).
[74] UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/77 (ibid., § 253); UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/23 (ibid., § 254) and Res. 1995/5 (ibid., § 255); UN Secretary-General, Report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (ibid., § 258); UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Report (ibid., § 262).
[75] Spain, Note from the President of the Spanish Junta de Defensa Nacional (ibid., § 360).
[76] Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines, Part III, Article 2(3) (ibid., § 154).
[77] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (El Salvador) (ibid., § 357).
[78] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Street Children v. Guatemala (ibid., § 358).
[79] Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines, Part III, Article 2(3) and Part IV, Articles 1 and 6 (ibid., § 318).
[80] See the practice of the National Liberation Army (Colombia) (ibid., § 365).
[81] UN Security Council, Res. 1071 (ibid., § 346).
[82] UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/70 (ibid., § 348).
[83] UN Secretary-General, Report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (ibid., § 258).