Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/print/v2_rul_rule79
Timestamp: 2019-08-22 10:05:16
Document Index: 221426449

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 308', '§ 932', '§ 407', '§ 4', '§ 631', '§ 632', '§ 21', '§ 513', '§ 408', '§ 0470', '§ 510', '§ 31', '§ 32', '§ 228', '§ 6', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 20', '§ 15', '§ 23', '§ 920']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 79. Weapons Primarily Injuring by Non-Detectable Fragments
2. Practice\Rule 79
Rule 79 (current)
The 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.”
Section 6.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “The use of certain conventional weapons, such as non-detectable fragments, … is prohibited.”
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that it is prohibited “to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-ray”.
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.16.
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “Munitions which produce fragments undetectable by X-ray machines, such as glass, are prohibited based upon the principle of unnecessary suffering.”
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 308.
The Guide provides that the use of “weapons which injure by fragments which, in the human body, escape detection by X-rays” is prohibited.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 932(d).
The Guide also states that these weapons are included in those which “are totally prohibited”. It adds: “These blanket prohibitions, which may be traced to treaty or customary international law, are justified on the grounds that the subject weapons are either indiscriminate in their effect or cause unnecessary suffering.”
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “Weapons which cause injury by the use of fragments which are undetectable by X-ray in the human body are prohibited.”
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 407.
The manual also states that these weapons are included in those which “are totally prohibited”. It adds: “These blanket prohibitions, which may be traced to treaty or customary international law, are justified on the grounds that the subject weapons are either indiscriminate in their effect or cause unnecessary suffering.”
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Weapons which cause injury by the use of fragments that are undetectable by X-ray in the human body are prohibited.”
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 4.9.
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states: “The use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-ray is prohibited.”
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 39.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons ‘the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays’.”
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 271, § 631; see also p. 274, § 632.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “Weapons that cause injury by the use of fragments undetectable by X-ray in the human body are prohibited.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 5-3, § 21.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Restrictions on the use of weapons”: “Weapons that cause injury by the use of fragments undetectable by X-ray in the human body are prohibited.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 513.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) prohibits the use of “fragmentation projectiles of which the fragments cannot be traced by X-rays”.
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders): “It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.”
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 53.
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states: “The incorporation in the ammunition of materials which are difficult to detect or undetectable by X-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds.”
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) includes weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments in the list of weapons that “are totally prohibited by the law of armed conflict” because of their inhuman and indiscriminate character.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) includes weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments in the list of weapons that “are totally prohibited by the law of armed conflict” because of their inhuman and indiscriminate character.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 53-54.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) prohibits the use of “any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 408.
International humanitarian law prohibits the use of a number of means of warfare, which are of a nature to violate the principle of humanity and to cause unnecessary suffering, e.g. … weapons whose primary effect is to injury by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays, e.g. plastic or glass ammunition.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states, regarding the use of weapons that injure by non-detectable fragments, that “the resultant injury is far in excess of what is required, hence forbidden”.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 13.
Shrapnel invisible to x-rays. These are weapons of war that spray shards of glass or plastic. These shards cause injuries similar to those caused by shrapnel but cannot be identified under x-ray, something that makes them hard to treat medically. The CCW Convention [1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons] banned the use of weapons which mainly cause damage consisting of shards that cannot be identified in the human body. The logic of this is clear: there is no point in continuing the fight beyond the battlefield and into the operating theatre. If someone is injured and leaves the scene of battle, preventing him from receiving medical attention does not contribute to the military effort. It is damage over and above what is necessary and is therefore forbidden.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “It is specifically prohibited … to use … bullets radiologically invisible”.
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “The use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-ray is prohibited.”
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 6.
Weapons whose primary effect is to cause wounds by means of elements (splinters or fragments) which cannot be detected by X-rays in the human body are prohibited …
The meaning of this prohibition, however, is limited. It is in fact what remains of attempts to get a prohibition for more categories of explosive ammunition, such as projectiles with pre-fragmented jacket, or filled with very small bullets (pellets) or with needle-like objects (fléchettes). These kinds of ammunition are not prohibited; in essence they do not differ from long existing and widely used high explosive shells.
Section 15 - Non-detectable fragments
0470. It is prohibited to use any weapon, the primary effect of which is to injure by small objects (fragments or shrapnel) which, in the human body, evade detection by X-rays. This prohibition also acts on the principle banning the use of weapons causing unnecessary suffering. Nevertheless, the significance of this prohibition is limited. In fact it is the sole remnant of efforts to secure a ban on more categories of explosive munitions, such as projectiles with pre-fragmented outer casing, or filled with very small shot (pellets) or finned needles (flêchettes). These types of ammunition are not prohibited: essentially they are no different from high-explosive shells, which have existed for a long time and been used everywhere.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0470.
It is prohibited to use weapons causing unnecessary suffering or excessive injury, or that are indiscriminate. This means that … weapons which cause injury by non-detectable fragments … are forbidden.
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) prohibits the use of “weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, §§ 510(d) (land warfare) and 617(d) (air warfare).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states: “It is expressly forbidden to use … projectiles with broken glass”.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “non-detectable fragments” are prohibited weapons.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.b.(2).(e).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “non-detectable fragments” are prohibited weapons.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 32(b)(2)(e), p. 248.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits the use of weapons that may cause superfluous injury or suffering and refers to the 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The following shall be prohibited to use in the course of combat operations: … any weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.”
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Weapons which are calculated to cause unnecessary suffering are illegal per se. Such weapons include … weapons filled with glass.”
(1) Protocol I: Protocol on Non-detectable Fragments. It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments, which, in the human body, escape detection by X-rays.
- Weapons that injure by fragments which escape detection in the human body by X-rays. (Geneva Protocol I on Non-detectable Fragments dated 10 October 1980.)
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) imposes an “absolute prohibition on the use of … weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states that there is an absolute prohibition on the use of certain weapons, including “[w]eapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays”.
[The 1980] Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons relates to certain fragmentation weapons. The Protocol forbids the use of weapons whose primary effect is to injure by fragments which cannot be detected by X-raying the injured person.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.3.2, p. 79.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states: “It is prohibited to use weapons the primary effect of which is the formation of fragments non-detectable in the human body by X-rays.”
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 23(a).
3 munitions that leave fragments that are undetectable by X-ray;
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, §§ 228(3) and 229.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that the use of “any weapon whose effect is to injure by fragments that in the human body escape detection by X-rays” as a means of warfare is prohibited.
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states: “Usage and practice has also determined that it is per se illegal to use projectiles filled with glass or other materials inherently difficult to detect medically.”
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980) states: “Using clear glass as the injuring mechanism in an explosive projectile or bomb is prohibited, since glass is difficult for surgeons to detect in a wound and impedes treatment.”
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-34, Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Armed Conflict, Judge Advocate General, US Department of the Air Force, 25 July 1980, § 6-2(a)(2).
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) states that the principle of unnecessary suffering “outlawed the use of … projectiles filled with glass”.
The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides: “Using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds.”
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 9.1.1.
[U]sing materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds. Use of such materials as incidental components in ammunition, e.g., as wadding or packing, is not prohibited.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 9.1.1.
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “use of … weapons injuring by fragments invisible by X-ray” is a war crime.
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, employing “weapons causing injury by fragments which cannot be detected by X-ray” as defined in the 1980 Protocol I to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is a war crime.
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 160/A(3)(b)(1).
3. the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and its Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments.
Non-detectable fragments
5. No person may –
(a) use, place, possess, procure, manufacture, stockpile, transfer, deal in, import or export any non-detectable fragments; or
(b) posses, procure, manufacture, stockpile, transfer, deal in, import or export a component part of a weapon contemplated in paragraph (a).
South Africa, Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Act, 2008, Section 5.
The Act defines “non-detectable fragments” as “any device or material the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detention by X-rays”.
d. employs weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by x-ray.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112d (1)(d).
d. employs weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264h (1)(d).
42. Using weapons the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.42.
At the First Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1995, Australia stated: “The restrictions laid down in the Convention regarding the use of … weapons which injured by non-detectable fragments were strong and clear.”
With respect to [the 1980] Protocol I [to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapons parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
Canada, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 June 1994, § 2.
India, Statement of 24 September 2001 at the Third Preparatory Committee for the Second Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, Geneva, 24-28 September 2001.
According to the Report on the Practice of India, in India there is “a ban and restriction on the use of … weapons primarily wounding by non-detectable fragments”.
Referring to an interview with the Director of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, the Report on the Practice of Indonesia affirms that Indonesia prohibits the use of weapons primarily injuring by non-detectable fragments.
With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, the Government of the State of Israel will apply the provisions of the Convention and those annexed Protocols to which Israel has agreed [I, II and III] become bound to all armed conflicts involving regular forces of States referred to in article 2 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to all armed conflicts referred to in article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 [international and non-international armed conflicts].
Israel also declared:
With respect to [the 1980] Protocol I [to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons], it is the understanding of the Government of Israel that the use of plastics or similar materials for detonators or other weapon parts not designed to cause injury is not prohibited.
Israel, Declarations and understandings made upon accession to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 22 March 1995, § (b).
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, Jordan does not use, manufacture or stockpile weapons primarily wounding by non-detectable fragments and it has no intention of possessing nor of using such weapons in the future.
In 1979, in a legal review of the Maverick Alternate Warhead, the US Department of the Air Force stated:
It is generally accepted … that … only weapons designed to injure through non detectable fragments would be prohibited. Incidental effects arising from the use of a few plastic parts in a munition would still be considered lawful.
United States, Air Force, Judge Advocate General, Legal Review of Maverick Alternate Warhead, (AGM-65E), 4 January 1979, § 3.
With reference to the scope of application defined in article 1 of the Convention, that the United States will apply the provisions of the Convention, Protocol I, and Protocol II to all armed conflicts referred to in articles 2 and 3 common to the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims of August 12, 1949 [international and non-international armed conflicts].
In a resolution adopted in 1980, the UN General Assembly welcomed the successful conclusion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols and commended the Convention and the three annexed Protocols to all States “with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to these instruments”.
In numerous resolutions adopted between 1981 and 1999, the UN General Assembly urged all States that had not done so to accede to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols.
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/93, 9 December 1981, § 1, adopted without a vote; Res. 37/79, 9 December 1982, § 1, adopted without a vote; Res. 38/66, 15 December 1983, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 39/56, 12 December 1984, § 3, adopted without a vote Res. 40/84, 12 December 1985, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 41/50, 3 December 1986, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 42/30, 30 November 1987, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 43/67, 7 December 1988, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 45/64, 4 December 1990, § 3, voting record: without a vote; Res. 46/40, 6 December 1991, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 47/56, 9 December 1992, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 48/79, 16 December 1993, § 3, voting record: 169-0-3-19; Res. 49/79, 15 December 1994, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 50/74, 12 December 1995, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 51/49, 10 December 1996, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 52/42, 9 December 1997, § 3, adopted without a vote; Res. 53/81, 4 December 1998, § 5, adopted without a vote; Res. 54/58, 1 December 1999, § III(3), adopted without a vote.
In 1976, the Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH noted that “there had been agreement on the proposal” to prohibit the use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments non-detectable by X-ray.
CDDH, Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons, Statement by the Rapporteur of the Working Group, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.40, 19 May 1976, p. 403, § 2.
In 1977, in the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Austria, Colombia, Denmark, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia presented a draft article for Additional Protocol I stipulating: “It is prohibited to use any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays.”
Austria, Colombia, Denmark, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Draft article entitled “Non-detectable fragments” submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/408/Rev.1, 17 March–10 June 1977, p. 539.
The proposal received support from the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States and Venezuela.
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.40, 19 May 1976, p. 407, § 20; United States, Statement at the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.32, 1 June 1976, p. 334, § 15; Venezuela, Statement at the Ad Hoc Committee on Conventional Weapons established by the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XVI, CDDH/IV/SR.25, 13 May 1976, p. 257, § 23.
During the preparatory conference for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 1979, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Ukraine, USSR, United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Zaire unanimously sponsored a proposal on the prohibition of weapons that primarily injure by non-detectable fragments, identical to the earlier consensus proposal.
Preparatory Conference for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 19 March-12 April 1979, Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10, 12 September 1978; Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10/ Add. 1, 13 September 1978; Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10/Add. 2, 15 September 1978; Draft proposal concerning non-detectable fragments, UN Doc. A/CONF.95/PREP.CONF/L.10/Add. 3, 10 April 1979.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “The use of any weapon the primary effect of which is to injure by fragments which in the human body escape detection by X-rays is prohibited.”
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 920.