Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/print/v2_rul_rule96
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 18:13:57
Document Index: 2290883

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 11', '§ 20', '§ 17', '§ 2', '§ 17', '§ 23', '§ 8', '§ 80', '§ 85', '§ 104', '§ 6', '§ 8', '§ 7', '§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 2', '§ 97', '§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 6', '§ 1', '§ 52', '§ 5', '§ 11', '§ 19', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 6', '§ 9', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 33', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 46', '§ 639', '§ 61', '§ 61', '§ 59', '§ 59', '§ 62', '§ 62', '§ 83', '§ 83', '§ 639', '§ 313', '§ 237', '§ 158', '§ 639', '§ 313', '§ 577', '§ 240', '§ 597', '§ 11', '§ 196', '§ 1']

Under Article 6(b) of the 1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg) “killing of hostages” is a war crime.
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, concluded by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto, annexed to the London Agreement, London, 8 August 1945, Article 6(b).
Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that the taking of hostages is and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever.
Article 34 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV states that the taking of hostages is prohibited.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 34.
Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV states that hostage-taking is a grave breach of the Convention.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 147.
Article 2(1)(a) and (2) of the 1973 Convention on Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons obliges States Parties to make punishable an “attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person”.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 3166 (XXVIII), 14 December 1973, Article 2(1)(a) and (2).
Article 75(2)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states that the taking of hostages is an act which is and “shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents”.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 75(2)(c). Article 75 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 250.
Article 4(2)(c) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II states that the taking of hostages is prohibited.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 4(2)(c). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.
The 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages criminalizes hostage-taking. Article 1 provides:
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking of hostages.
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 34/146, 17 December 1979, Article 1.
Article 12 of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages specifies that the Convention is not applicable to acts of hostage-taking committed in armed conflicts if the 1949 Geneva Conventions or the 1977 Additional Protocols thereto are applicable in so far as the Conventions require States to prosecute or hand over the hostage-takers.
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 34/146, 17 December 1979, Article 12.
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(a)(viii) and (c)(iii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, the “[t]aking of hostages” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-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)(a)(viii) and (c)(iii).
Article 3(c) of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone provides that “[t]he Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed or ordered the commission of serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, and of Additional Protocol II thereto of 8 June 1977”, which include “[t]aking of hostages”.
Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the 2002 Agreement on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Freetown, 16 January 2002, annexed to Letter dated 6 March 2002 from the UN Secretary-General to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/2002/246, 8 March 2002, p. 29, Article 3(c).
c. … abduction.
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 9(1)(c).
Article II(1)(b) of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10 provides that “killing of hostages” is a war crime.
Allied Control Council Law No. 10: Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, enacted by the Allied Control Council of Germany, composed of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Berlin, 20 December 1945, Article II(1)(b).
Principle VI of the 1950 Nuremberg Principles adopted by the International Law Commission provides that “killing of hostages” is a war crime.
Under Rule 4 of the 1950 UN Command Rules and Regulations, Military Commissions of the UN Command had jurisdiction over offences such as the improper treatment of hostages.
According to Article 22(2)(a) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “acts of … taking of hostages” are considered as an exceptionally serious war crime and as a serious violation of the principles and rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
Under Paragraph 1 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the parties committed themselves to respect and ensure respect for common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Paragraph 2.3 requires that all civilians be treated in accordance with Article 75 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Under Article 2(h) of the 1993 ICTY Statute, the Tribunal is competent to prosecute the taking of civilians as hostages.
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 2(h).
Under Article 4(c) of the 1994 ICTR Statute, the Tribunal is competent to prosecute violations of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including the taking of hostages.
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 4(c).
According to Article 20(a)(viii) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the “[t]aking of hostages” is regarded as a war crime. Under Article 20(f)(iii), “[t]aking of hostages” constitutes a war crime in conflicts not of an international character.
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(a)(viii) and (f)(iii).
Article 3(1) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that all acts of violence, including hostage-taking, shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to persons hors de combat.
UN Secretary General’s Bulletin
According to Section 7.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin, the taking hostage of persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations and persons placed hors de combat is prohibited at any time and in any place.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(a)(viii) and (c)(iii), the “[t]aking of hostages” constitutes a war crime in both international and non-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, § 6(1)(a)(viii) and (c)(iii).
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) and Law of War Manual (1989) prohibit the taking of hostages.
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, §§ 4.012 and 8.001; 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, §§ 4.15, 4.29, 7.04 and 8.03.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that the taking of hostages is prohibited in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule I, p. 17, Fascicule II, p. 19 and Fascicule III, p. 4.
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) prohibits hostage-taking.
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) prohibits hostage-taking.
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) provides that “hostage-taking” is a grave breach of IHL and a war crime.
Croatia’s Soldiers’ Manual (1992) explicitly forbids civilian hostage-taking.
Croatia, Rules of Conduct for Soldiers, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, p. 5.
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) provides: “It is a breach of the laws of war to take civilians as hostages.”
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “Enemy civilians may not be interned as hostages.”
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11-9.
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés , Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, pp. 3, 5 and 7.
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “It is forbidden for members of the armed forces: … To take hostages.”
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) provides that hostage-taking is a grave breach of IHL and a war crime.
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states that the “taking of hostages” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV relating to the treatment of civilians.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) prohibits hostage-taking and states that the taking of hostages is a war crime.
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, §§ 20, 41(f), 48(6) and 84.
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) prohibits hostage-taking.
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 17.
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) instructs: “Do not take hostages”.
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) lists as one of the soldier’s rules for behaviour in combat: “Do not take hostages.”
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, pp. 5–6 and Précis No. 3, p. 14, § 2.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states that the taking of hostages is prohibited.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 3-O, § 17, Fiche No. 4-T, § 23 and Fiche No. 5-T, § 8.
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) prohibits hostage-taking.
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “The States party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions undertake to: … prohibit … hostage-taking.”
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 80(C); see also § 85(B), §§ 104, 107(B) and 224(B).
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009) states: “War crimes include … the taking and execution of hostages”.
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) prohibits hostage-taking.
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996) prohibits the taking of hostages, including the threat to commit such acts.
Nicaragua, Manual de Comportamiento y Proceder de las Unidades Militares y de los Miembros del Ejército de Nicaragua en Tiempo de Paz, Conflictos Armados, Situaciones Irregulares o Desastres Naturales, Ejército de Nicaragua, Estado Mayor General, Asesoría Jurídica del Nicaragua, 1996, Articles 7(2) and 14(35).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides that hostage-taking is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and is considered a serious war crime.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6(c).
The Soldier’s Rules (1989) of the Philippines instructs soldiers: “Do not take hostages.”
Philippines, Soldier’s Rules, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(I), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 8.
The Republic of Korea’s Military Regulation 187 (1991) provides that taking hostages is an “unjustifiable crime”.
Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) provides that hostage-taking of civilians and captured combatants is prohibited.
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, pp. 15 and 34.
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Do not take hostages.”
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) prohibits the taking of hostages among the civilian population.
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, § 7.3.a.(1); see also § 10.6.b.(4) and 10.8.b.
l. the taking of hostages.
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, § 8.2.c; see also § 10.3.e.(1).
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that hostage-taking is prohibited in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, p. 18, Fascicule II, p. 19 and Fascicule III, p. 4.
- taking hostages.
Zimbabwe’s Code of Conduct for Combatants (1993) states that “taking hostages [is] forbidden.”
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “taking hostages” during an armed conflict constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind.
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.2(5).
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that in international and non-international armed conflicts, the hostage-taking of civilians is prohibited.
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 17(3).
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the taking hostage of protected persons is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the killing of hostages is a war crime. It adds that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime.
A person who commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 … may be tried and punished by any court in Barbados that has jurisdiction in respect of similar offences in Barbados as if the grave breach had been committed in Barbados.
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that the capture and detention of persons as hostage who have laid down their arms or who are defenceless, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, medical and religious personnel, prisoners of war, the civilian population in an occupied territory or in the conflict zone or other persons enjoying international protection is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998) provides that hostage-taking is a war crime.
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing the “taking of hostages”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime.
Whoever unlawfully confines, keeps confined or in some other manner deprives another person of freedom of movement, or restricts it in some way, or seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain as a hostage, with an aim to compel a State or an international intergovernmental organization, to perform or to abstain from performing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of a hostage,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 191(1).
Whoever unlawfully confines, keeps confined or in some other manner deprives an internationally protected person of freedom of movement, or restricts it in some way, with the aim to force him or some other person to do or to omit or to bear something, or perpetrates some other violence against such a person or his liberty … likely to endanger his person or liberty,
Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, provides that ordering or carrying out the taking of a civilian hostage is a war crime.
Bulgaria, Penal Code, 1968, as amended in 1999, Article 412(b).
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that the “killing of hostages” constitutes a war crime.
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3, § 2.
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides that hostage-taking is a war crime.
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Articles 158 and 171.
6. Taking of hostages;
Estonia’s Penal Code (2001) provides that hostage-taking of civilians is a war crime.
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 97.
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, the organizing, ordering or carrying out of hostage-taking of civilians constitutes a war crime.
(g) … the taking of hostages…
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “takes persons as hostages … or uses other means of warfare prohibited in international law” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”.
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), hostage-taking is a crime in international and internal armed conflicts.
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(2)(g).
Under Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005), the “[t]aking of hostages” constitutes a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(1)(I).
Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (1950) includes “killing of hostages” in its definition of war crimes.
Any military person who violates the prohibition of hostage taking established by the rules on international armed conflicts is to be punished with two to ten years military imprisonment.
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, as amended on 31 January 2002, Article 184-bis.
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the “taking of hostages” shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict.
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(6).
Kazakhstan’s Penal Code (1997) provides that hostage-taking is a crime.
Kazakhstan, Penal Code, 1997, Article 229.
Kyrgyzstan’s Criminal Code (1997) provides that hostage-taking is a punishable offence.
Kyrgyzstan, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 224.
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, hostage-taking is a war crime.
Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985) provides that hostage-taking is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Article 1(8).
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), hostage-taking is a war crime.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(h).
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, criminalizes the taking of hostages.
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) provides that hostage-taking is an offence against the laws and customs of war, in both international and non-international conflicts.
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Articles 48 and 49; see also Article 58.
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, hostage-taking of persons protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions or their Additional Protocols of 1977 is a war crime.
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(7).
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of any person who, in violation of international law, takes hostage persons hors de combat, protected persons and persons enjoying international protection.
Portugal’s Penal Code (1996) provides for the punishment of anyone who, in violation of international law, in times of war, armed conflict or occupation, takes hostage the civilian population, the wounded and sick, or prisoners of war.
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Article 241(1)(d).
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “[t]aking hostage a person who is to be protected under international humanitarian law” in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 10(2)(1).
The Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002) punishes the hostage-taking of protected persons.
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 137(2)(b).
Romania’s Penal Code (1968) punishes the hostage-taking of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, members of civil medical services, the Red Cross or similar organizations, prisoners of war, or of all persons in the hands of the adverse party.
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Article 358(b).
8° taking of hostages and their subjection to acts of terrorism;
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing the “taking of hostages” from among the civilian population, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime.
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act (1973) punishes “any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside Singapore, commits, aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any [1949 Geneva] Convention”.
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides that hostage-taking is a war crime.
Under Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985), hostage-taking of nationals of the State with which Spain is at war is an offence against the laws and customs of war.
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 77(6).
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes anyone who, in time of armed conflict, takes any protected person hostage.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 611(4).
4. … [T]aking a protected person hostage.
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) includes the “taking of hostages”, a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, as an indictable offence.
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) provides for the punishment of hostage-taking in international or non-international armed conflicts.
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(2)(g).
Thailand’s Prisoners of War Act (1955) provides a punishment for “whoever takes a hostage” in a non-international armed conflict.
Thailand, Prisoners of War Act, 1955, Section 19.
The Supreme Court [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557, 29 June 2006] has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda. The Court found that the military commissions as constituted by the Department of Defense are not consistent with Common Article 3.
8. Taking of hostages.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.8.
Any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions that would, if committed in Vanuatu, be an offence under any provision of the Penal Code Act Cap. 135 or any other law shall be an offence under such provision of the Penal Code or any other law if committed outside Vanuatu.
Under Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998), hostage-taking of civilians is a war crime.
In 2006, in the Maktouf case, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in sentencing the accused for a war crime against civilians in violation of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, defined a hostage as:
… any person seized or detained and threatened to be killed, to be injured or continually detained by another person in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage.
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “Civilians shall not be held [as] hostages”.
In 1976, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Italy stated that the odious practice of taking hostages was clearly condemned under the modern rules of war. It further stated:
Each time a hostage had been taken, those responsible have been disowned by the organisations for which they had claimed to act, showing that the practice was condemned in respect of both international and non-international armed conflict … The need was therefore not to protect any particular category of persons but simply to devise an effective ban on the practice of taking hostages as such, in view of its inhuman nature, which was an affront to the bases of the social conscience.
Italy, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/31/SR.55, 26 November 1976, § 13.
In 1979, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Italy commented on the outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Drafting of a Convention against the Taking of Hostages and stated that the taking of hostages was one of the greatest evils of modern times and an act which, even in wartime, was considered an international crime.
Italy, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/34/SR.11, 5 October 1979, § 13.
In 1995, the Pakistani government condemned the kidnapping of British and American nationals in the context of the conflict in Kashmir, emphasizing that it was the responsibility of the Indian government to ensure the safety of visitors to the region.
Pakistan, Foreign Office Briefings, Transcript of the press briefing by the Foreign Office spokesman, 13 July 1995, pp. 73–80.
In 2009, in its combined third and fourth periodic reports to the Committee against Torture, Sri Lanka stated: “Recently arrests of two gangs involved in abduction for ransom in the Eastern Province contributed to a cessation of such incidents, though the need for constant vigilance continues in the context of terrorism and its aftermath.”
–	the taking of Kuwaiti nationals as hostages … in violation of Articles 34 … and 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV].
–	the taking of third nationals in Kuwait as hostages … in violation of Articles 34 … and 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV].
–	the taking of third nationals in Iraq as hostages … in violation of Articles 34 … and 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV].
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on incidents of hostage-taking and abduction, the UN Security Council considered that the taking of hostages and abductions were “offences of grave concern to all States” and “serious violations of international humanitarian law”. It also condemned “unequivocally all acts of hostage-taking and abduction” and demanded “the immediate safe release of all hostages and abducted persons, wherever and by whomever they are being held”.
UN Security Council, Res. 638, 31 July 1989, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 15-0-0.
In a resolution adopted in 1990 in connection with the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the UN Security Council stated that it condemned “the actions by the Iraqi authorities and occupying forces to take third-State nationals hostage” and demanded that they immediately “cease and desist from taking third-State nationals hostage [and] mistreating and oppressing Kuwaiti and third-State nationals”.
UN Security Council, Res. 674, 29 October 1990, preamble and § 1, voting record: 13-0-2.; see also Res. 686, 2 March 1991, § 2(c), voting record: 11-1-3, and Res. 706, 15 August 1991, § 6, voting record: 13-1-1.
In two statements by its President in 1997 and 1998 on the situation in Tajikistan, the UN Security Council denounced the taking of relief workers and others as hostages, demanded their immediate release and expressly stressed the inadmissibility of kidnapping.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/6, 7 February 1997; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/4, 24 February 1998.
In a statement by its President in 1998, the UN Security Council condemned hostage-taking by former members of the deposed junta in Sierra Leone and called for the immediate release of all international personnel and others who had been held hostage.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/5, 26 February 1998.
In a resolution adopted in 1998, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned the overwhelming number of human rights violations committed by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the police and the military authorities in Kosovo, including the taking of civilian hostages, in breach of international humanitarian law, including common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol II.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned the “hostage-taking” of those participating in humanitarian operations.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/122, 17 December 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned the “hostage-taking” of those participating in humanitarian operations.
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/211, 20 December 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of United Nations personnel, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned the “hostage-taking” of those participating in humanitarian operations.
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/123, 15 December 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on hostage-taking, the UN General Assembly:
Taking into account the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 34/146 of 17 December 1979, which recognizes that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and considers the taking of hostages to be an offence of grave concern to the international community, as well as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the Assembly in its resolution 3166 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973,
Bearing in mind the relevant Security Council resolutions condemning all cases of terrorism, including those of hostage-taking, in particular resolution 1440 (2002) of 24 October 2002,
Mindful of the fact that hostage-taking constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and is also a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war,
Reaffirming its relevant resolutions, including the most recent, resolution 57/220 of 18 December 2002,
Recalling all relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights on the subject, including its most recent, resolution 2005/31 of 19 April 2005, in which it condemned the taking of any person as a hostage, as well as the statement by the President of the Human Rights Council of 30 June 2006 on the same subject,
Concerned that, despite the efforts of the international community, acts of hostage-taking in different forms and manifestations, including, inter alia, those committed by terrorists and armed groups, continue to take place and have even increased in many regions of the world,
Appealing for the humanitarian action of humanitarian organizations, in particular the International Committee of the Red Cross and its delegates, to be respected, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977,
Recognizing that hostage-taking calls for resolute, firm and concerted efforts on the part of the international community in order, in strict conformity with international human rights standards, to bring such abhorrent practices to an end,
1. Reaffirms that hostage-taking, wherever and by whomever committed, is a serious crime aimed at the destruction of human rights and is, under any circumstances, unjustifiable;
2. Condemns all acts of hostage-taking, anywhere in the world;
3. Demands that all hostages be released immediately and without any preconditions, and expresses its solidarity with the victims of hostage-taking;
4. Calls upon States to take all necessary measures, in accordance with relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and international human rights standards, to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking, including by strengthening international cooperation in this field.
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/172, 19 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–4, adopted without a vote.
52. Condemns all forms of violence against children, including … hostage-taking …
61. Requests the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict … to ensure between them … that the situations of all children subject to or at risk of violence are addressed, including those of armed conflict, foreign occupation, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism or hostage-taking.
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/141, 18 December 2007, §§ 52 and 61, voting record: 183-1-0-8.
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned hostage-taking.
In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN Commission on Human Rights included the taking of hostages among violations of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/S-1/1, 14 August 1992, § 5, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned hostage-taking during the internal armed conflict in Cambodia. It expressed its “grave concern over the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge including the taking and killing of foreign hostages”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/55, 3 March 1995, § 11, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution on Cambodia adopted in 1998, the UN Commission on Human Rights endorsed the comments of the Special Representative stating that “in recent history the most serious human rights violations in Cambodia have been committed by the Khmer Rouge” and cited the taking and killing of hostages as an example.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/60, 17 April 1998, § 19, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution on Lebanon adopted in 1998, the UN Commission on Human Rights “called upon the government of Israel … to refrain from holding Lebanese detainees incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/62, 21 April 1998, § 4, voting record: 52-1-0.
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on hostage-taking, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned all acts of hostage-taking anywhere in the world and stated that such acts were illegal wherever and by whomever committed and that they were unjustifiable under any circumstances, as their aim was the destruction of fundamental human rights. The Commission demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/73, 22 April 1998, §§ 1–4, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2001 on hostage-taking, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
1. Reaffirms that hostage-taking, wherever and by whomever committed, is an illegal act aimed at the destruction of human rights and is, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, including as a means to promote and protect human rights.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/38, 23 April 2001, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
2. Also calls upon the Government of Israel to refrain from holding the detained Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes and to release them immediately, in compliance with all the Geneva Conventions and other provisions of international law.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/8, 16 April 2003, preamble and § 2, voting record: 32-1-20.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on hostage-taking, the UN Commission on Human Rights,
Taking into account the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 34/146 of 17 December 1979, which also recognizes that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and that the taking of hostages is an offence of grave concern to the international community, as well as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 3166 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973,
Mindful of the fact that hostage-taking constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and is also a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
Concerned that, despite the efforts of the international community, acts of hostage taking in different forms and manifestations, inter alia those committed by terrorists and armed groups, continue to take place and have even increased in many regions of the world,
Appealing for the humanitarian action of humanitarian organizations, in particular of the International Committee of the Red Cross and its delegates, to be respected, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 thereto,
1. Reaffirms that hostage-taking, wherever and by whomever committed, is a serious crime aimed at the destruction of human rights and is, under any circumstances, unjustifiable, including as a means to promote and protect human rights;
2. Condemns all acts of hostage-taking anywhere in the world;
4. Calls upon States to take all necessary measures, in accordance with relevant provisions of international law and international human rights standards, to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking, including by strengthening international cooperation in this field.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/40, 23 April 2003, preamble and §§ 1–4, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the protection of United Nations personnel, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned “hostage-taking … and other hostile acts against United Nations and associated personnel and other personnel acting under the authority of United Nations operations, as well as personnel of international humanitarian organizations”.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “[a]ll acts of violence such as hostage-taking, abduction and murder, including of humanitarian relief workers and of United Nations agency personnel”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/78, 25 April 2003, § 6(d), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “[a]ll acts of violence such as hostage-taking, abduction and murder, including of humanitarian relief workers and of United Nations agency personnel”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/80, 21 April 2004, § 9(e), adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on hostage-taking, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Mindful of the fact that hostage-taking constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and is also a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, for the protection of victims of war,
Concerned that, despite the efforts of the international community, acts of hostage taking in different forms and manifestations, including, those committed by terrorists and armed groups, continue to take place and have even increased in many regions of the world,
Appealing for the humanitarian action of humanitarian organizations, in particular the International Committee of the Red Cross and its delegates, to be respected, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 thereto,
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. Res. 2005/31, 19 April 2005, preamble and §§ 1–4, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights firmly condemned “acts of violence such as hostage-taking, abduction and murder, including of humanitarian relief workers and of United Nations agency personnel”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/83, 21 April 2005, § 7(a), adopted without a vote.
In 1996, in a report on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, the UN Secretary-General reported that, following a series of hostage-taking incidents, the two sides had agreed to exchange all hostages and to consider kidnapping a crime whose authors would be arrested and prosecuted. In the space of one month, UNOMIG assisted in the exchange of 13 hostages, 11 held by the Abkhaz side, two by the Georgian side.
UN Secretary-General, Report concerning the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia, UN Doc. S/1996/284, 15 April 1996, § 33.
In 1997, in a report on the situation in Somalia, the UN Secretary-General, citing violations of human rights and IHL, pointed out that the practice of kidnapping remained common.
In a resolution adopted in 1990 concerning the Gulf War, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly condemned the taking of foreign nationals as hostages. It demanded the immediate release of third State nationals being held as hostages by the Iraqi authorities in Iraq and Kuwait.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 950, 1 October 1990, §§ 2 and 5(ii).
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Chechnya, the European Parliament called upon the Chechen authorities to take all measures in their power to locate and release all civilian hostages kidnapped before and during the current conflict.
European Parliament, Resolution on violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Chechnya, 16 March 2000, § 11.
In 1989, in a resolution on hostages in El Salvador, the Permanent Council of the OAS resolved to make an urgent appeal to safeguard the lives and persons of those being held hostage, and to call for their immediate and unconditional release.
OAS, Permanent Council, Resolution on Hostages in El Salvador, 1989, § 4.
The 23rd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1977 adopted a resolution in which it condemned “the taking of hostages” and urged “all governments to take the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of such acts”.
23rd International Conference of the Red Cross, Bucharest, 15–21 October 1977, Res. VIII, §§ 1 and 2.
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that all the parties to an armed conflict ensure that “the prohibition of taking hostages is strictly respected”.
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 1(d).
The Final Declaration adopted by the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict in 2002 expressed deep concern about “the number and expansion of conflicts in Africa” and alarm at “the spread of violence, in particular in the form of … hostage-taking … which seriously violate[s] the rules of International Humanitarian Law”.
In its judgement in the Nicaragua case (Merits) in 1986, the ICJ held that the rules contained in common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions reflected what the Court in 1949 in the Corfu Channel case (Merits) had called “elementary considerations of humanity”.
One category of cases involved the large-scale killing of civilians in occupied territory as part of a policy of reprisals, exemplified by the massacres committed on 29 June 1944 in Civitella (Val di Chiana), Cornia and San Pancrazio by members of the “Hermann Goring” division of the German armed forces involving the killing of 203 civilians taken as hostages after resistance fighters had killed four German soldiers a few days earlier (Max Josef Milde case, Military Court of La Spezia, judgment of 10 October 2006 (registered on 2 February 2007)) … The Court considers that there can be no doubt that this conduct was a serious violation of the international law of armed conflict applicable in 1943–1945.
In the Karadžić and Mladić case before the ICTY in 1995, the accused were charged with grave breaches and violations of the laws and customs of war for having seized 284 UN peacekeepers in Pale, Sarajevo, Goražde and other locations and held them as hostages in order to prevent further air strikes by NATO.
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Initial Indictment, 24 July 1995, §§ 46–48.
In its judgement in the Blaškić case in 2000, the ICTY Trial Chamber held:
The taking of hostages is prohibited by Article 3(b) common to the [1949] Geneva Conventions which is covered by Article 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute … Consonant with the spirit of the Fourth Convention, the Commentary sets out that the term “hostage” must be understood in the broadest sense. The definition of hostages must be understood as being similar to that of civilians taken as hostages within the meaning of grave breaches under Article 2 of the Statute, that is – persons unlawfully deprived of their freedom, often wantonly and sometimes under threat of death.
The Appeals Chamber agrees that the essential element in the crime of hostage-taking is the use of a threat concerning detainees so as to obtain a concession or gain an advantage; a situation of hostage-taking exists when a person seizes or detains and threatens to kill, injure or continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party to do or to abstain from doing something as a condition for the release of that person. The crime of hostage-taking is prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Articles 34 and 147 of Geneva Convention IV,http://www.un.org/icty/blaskic/appeal/judgement/foot.htm - 1333 and Article 75(2)(c) of Additional Protocol I.
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment on Appeal, 29 July 2004, § 639.
In its judgement in the Kordić and Čerkez case in 2001, the ICTY Trial Chamber held that “an individual commits the offence of taking civilians as hostages when he threatens to subject civilians, who are unlawfully detained, to inhuman treatment or death as a means of achieving the fulfilment of a condition”. The Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (taking civilians as hostages).
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment, 26 February 2001, Part V.
In the Bockarie case before the SCSL in 2003, the accused, a senior member of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, was charged, inter alia,
[f]or the abductions and holding as hostage, [t]aking of hostages, a VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II, punishable under Article 3.c. of the [2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone].
SCSL, Bockarie case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 61, Count 17.
Between about 15 April 2000 and about 15 September 2000, AFRC/RUF engaged in widespread attacks against UNAMSIL [United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone] peacekeepers and humanitarian assistance workers within the Republic of Sierra Leone … These attacks included unlawful killing of UNAMSIL peacekeepers, and abducting hundreds of peacekeepers and humanitarian assistance workers who were then held hostage.
SCSL, Bockarie case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 61.
In the Koroma case before the SCSL in 2003, the accused, the leader of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC), a senior leader of the AFRC/Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a senior member of the Junta regime, and exercising the powers of the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone from May 1997 to February 1998, was, inter alia, charged
SCSL, Koroma case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 59, Count 17.
SCSL, Koroma case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 59.
In the Sankoh case before the SCSL in 2003, the accused, the leader of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a senior leader in the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF, and a senior member of the Junta regime, was charged, inter alia,
SCSL, Sankoh case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 62, Count 17.
SCSL, Sankoh case, Indictment, 7 March 2003, § 62.
In the Sesay case before the SCSL in 2006, the accused Sesay and Kallon, senior commanders in the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Junta and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC)/RUF forces, and the accused Gbao, senior commander in the RUF and AFRC/RUF forces, were charged, inter alia,
[f]or abductions and holding as hostage, taking of hostages, a VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II, punishable under Article 3.c. of the [2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone].
SCSL, Sesay case, Corrected Amended Consolidated Indictment, 2 August 2006, § 83, Count 18.
SCSL, Sesay case, Corrected Amended Consolidated Indictment, 2 August 2006, § 83.
In its judgement in the case in 2009, the Trial Chamber set out the elements of the offence of hostage-taking, stating:
237. The Chamber notes that the prohibition against the taking of hostages is found in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions, is identified as a grave breach under Articles 34 and 147 of Geneva Convention IV and is recognized as fundamental guarantee for civilians and persons hors de combat in [the 1977] Additional Protocols I and II. It is also proscribed as an offence in the Statutes of the ICTY, the ICTR and the ICC and has been recognised as an offence by the ICTY Appeals Chamber.
238. Further, numerous military manuals and the legislation of many States also prohibit the taking of hostages. This Chamber notes that hostage-taking in both international and national conflicts has been condemned by States and by international organisations.
239. The Chamber is, therefore, satisfied that this prohibition against hostage-taking existed in customary international law and was deemed a war crime entailing individual criminal responsibility at the time of the commission of the offence as alleged in the Indictment.
240. In addition to the chapeau requirements for establishing a war crime, the Chamber holds that the specific elements for the offence of hostage-taking are as follows:
(i) The Accused seized, detained, or otherwise held hostage one or more persons;
(ii) The Accused threatened to kill, injure or continue to detain such person(s); and
(iii) The Accused intended to compel a State, an international organisation, a natural or legal person or a group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or the release of such person(s).
241. Consistent with the general requirements for a war crime, this Chamber considers that it is the law that the person or persons held hostage must not be taking a direct part in the hostilities at the time of the alleged violation. The person(s) must be “seized, detained, or otherwise held hostage”. In the Chamber’s opinion, the term “hostage” must be interpreted in its broadest sense.
242. In addition to this element of confinement, the Chamber takes the view that the Prosecution must prove that there was a threat made against the hostage which would be realised if a particular condition is not fulfilled. The ICTY Appeals Chamber in Blaskic stated that “the essential element in the crime of hostage-taking is the use of a threat concerning detainees so as to obtain a concession or gain an advantage […].” [ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgement on Appeal, § 639] The threat can be either explicit or implicit.
243. The Chamber agrees that the taking of hostages is a crime with a specific intent mens rea and that “such a threat must be intended as a coercive measure to achieve the fulfilment of a condition.” [ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgement, § 313] The Prosecution must establish that in taking persons hostage and making a threat, the Accused intended to compel a party, broadly defined as either “a State, an international organisation, a natural or legal person or a group of persons”, to do something or to refrain from doing something as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or the release of the hostages.
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment, 2 March 2009, §§ 237–243.
577. The Appeals Chamber notes that the principal provisions of international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflict that relate to hostage-taking reference “the taking of hostages” without more. The international humanitarian law of international armed conflict is no more helpful, the relevant provisions being equally sparse. The same is true of the Statutes of the ICTY, the ICTR and the International Criminal Court. Although the offence of the taking of hostages appears in each, little guidance is forthcoming.
578. The [2000] Elements of Crimes of the International Criminal Court, do, however, set out the elements of the offence. These mirror, in all salient respects, the elements as first set out by the Trial Chamber, suggesting that communication of the threat to a third party is not an element of the offence. The ICC Elements of Crimes are designed to “assist the [ICC] in the interpretation and application” of the crimes. Before this Court, they are instructive, comprising, as they do, a useful interpretational tool; however, they are neither binding nor do they represent the state of customary international law in each and every instance.
579. The relevant elements of the ICC Elements of Crimes are “largely taken from” the definition contained in the [1979] Hostages Convention. Analysis of that Convention may, then, prove useful. Article 1(1) of the Convention provides:
580. As the Lambert Commentary on the Hostages Convention notes:
[T]he words “in order to compel” seem to relate to the motivation of the hostage-taker, rather than to any physical acts which he might take. Thus, while the seizure and threat will usually be accompanied or followed by a demand that a third party act in a certain way, there is no actual requirement that a demand be uttered. Thus, if there is a detention and threat, yet no demands, there will still be a hostage-taking if the offender is seeking to compel a third party.1477
[One of the appellants] focuses on the word “uttered” in the second sentence of this quotation to suggest that the passage goes to the mode of expression of the demands. However, as the subsequent sentence indicates, the passage in fact goes to the very existence of demands. This is made even clearer in a footnote to this passage, which observes: “In this connexion it might be noted that many kidnappings and hostage-takings do not involve any demands. … Incidents wherein demands are not made will not necessarily fall outside the scope of this Convention, however, in such cases the intent to compel will be difficult to discern.” The communication of the threat to a third party is, then, a means by which to evidence an element of the offence, but does not comprise an element itself in need of proof.
581. This view has been followed by at least one domestic court. In the case of Simpson v. Libya, the D.C. Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals had occasion to consider the definition of “hostage-taking” in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a definition which, for present purposes, is identical to that contained in the Hostages Convention. The Court opined: “a plaintiff need not allege that the hostage taker had communicated [his] intended purpose to the outside world,” “plaintiffs need not demonstrate that a third party was aware of the hostage taking” and “‘demands’ are not required to establish the element of hostage taking.” The Court also held that “the intentionality requirement focused on the mens rea of the hostage taker” rather than on the actus reus.
582. A review of domestic legislation also leads to the conclusion that the communication of the threat to a third party is not an element of the offence. A large number of States’ legislation does not include communication of the threat to a third party as an element of the offence; others explicitly state or implicitly suggest that no such requirement need be proven. Only the odd State imposes such a requirement. [The appellant] misreads the import of this domestic legislation. It does not follow from a requirement that the threat be made with an intention to coerce that the threat be communicated to the third party.
583. As the Parties note, of the limited international jurisprudence that exists, three cases are particularly pertinent. In the Blaskić case, an ICTY Trial Chamber held that it must be proven that “the allegedly censurable act was perpetrated in order to obtain a concession or gain an advantage.” [ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgement, § 158] This is the key element of the offence – “the use of a threat concerning detainees so as to obtain a concession or gain an advantage” [ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgement on Appeal, § 639] – for it is this that distinguishes the detention (whether lawful or unlawful) from hostage-taking. As put by an ICTY Trial Chamber in Kordić and Čerkez:
[t]he additional element that must be proved to establish the crime of unlawfully taking civilians hostage is the issuance of a conditional threat in respect of the physical and mental wellbeing of civilians who are unlawfully detained. … In the Chamber’s view, such a threat must be intended as a coercive measure to achieve the fulfilment of a condition. [ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgement, § 313]
This passage usefully reveals that a threat must be issued and that the threat must be intended as a coercive measure; the former relates to the actus reus and the latter to the mens rea. There is no requirement in the jurisprudence of the ICTY that the threat has to be communicated to a third party. It suffices that the threat be communicated to the detained individual.
584. In the third case, the Hostages case before the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, the Tribunal espoused a requirement for a communication to a third party:
It is essential to a lawful taking of hostages under customary law that proclamation be made, giving the name and addresses of hostages taken, notifying the population that upon the recurrence of stated acts of war treason that the hostages will be shot.
585. However, the context of the quote illustrates the necessity for the requirement. In certain instances, the taking and execution of hostages was considered lawful, as a last resort, to guarantee the obedience of the civilian population of occupied territories. In order for such a rationale to make sense, there was necessarily a requirement that the threat be communicated to a third party. This comes through from another passage of the Tribunal:
An examination of the available evidence on the subject convinces us that hostages may be taken in order to guarantee the peaceful conduct of the populations of occupied territories and, when certain conditions exist and the necessary preliminaries have been taken, they may, as a last resort, be shot. … The occupant may properly insist upon compliance with regulations necessary to the security of the occupying forces and for the maintenance of law and order. In the accomplishment of this objective, the occupant may, only as a last resort, take and execute hostages.
With the change in the law and rendering of the taking of hostages unlawful, the requirement of communication falls away. The logic that applied at the time of the lawful taking of hostages is now moot.
586. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber erred in introducing into the elements of the crime a requirement that the threat must have been communicated to a third party.
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment on Appeal, 26 October 2009, §§ 577–586.
597. … As a matter of law, the requisite intent may be present at the moment the individual is first detained or may be formed at some time thereafter while the persons were held. In the former instance, the offence is complete at the time of the initial detention (assuming all the other elements of the crime are satisfied); in the latter, the situation is transformed into the offence of hostage-taking the moment the intent crystallises (again, assuming the other elements of the crime are satisfied).
598. The Appeals Chamber notes that it could not be otherwise, for it would mean that the crime of hostage-taking could never arise out of an initially lawful detention; similarly, an unlawful abduction could never be transformed into a case of hostage taking. Yet the precise means by which the individual falls into the hands of the perpetrator is not the defining characteristic of the offence; it is, rather, a secondary feature. As the Trial Chamber found, the first element of the crime is that an individual was “seized, detained, or otherwise held hostage.” [SCSL, Sesay case, Judgement, § 240] For its part, the ICRC Commentary on [the 1977] Additional Protocol II defines a hostage as “persons who are in the power of a party to the conflict or its agent, willingly or unwillingly.” The ICTY has shown that the key feature of the offence is the threat coupled with the compulsion. In the view of the Appeals Chamber, to exclude from the scope of the crime the individual who possesses the mens rea at a period subsequent to the initial confinement fails to recognize the continuing nature of the offence.
SCSL, Sesay case, Judgment on Appeal, 26 October 2009, §§ 597–598.
11. States parties may in no circumstances invoke article 4 of the Covenant as justification for acting in violation of humanitarian law or peremptory norms of international law, for instance by taking hostages.
(b) The prohibitions against taking of hostages, abductions, or unacknowledged detention are not subject to derogation. The absolute nature of these prohibitions, even in times of emergency, is justified by their status as norms of general international law.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 29 (Article 4 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 24 July 2001, §§ 11 and 13(b).
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that the taking of hostages is prohibited and that it constitutes a grave breach of the law of war.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 196 and 776(d).
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated that “the taking of hostages” is specifically prohibited.
In a press release in 1992, the ICRC urged all the parties involved in the conflict in Tajikistan to ensure the protection of civilians and military victims, in compliance with the basic rules of IHL and in particular “to refrain from taking hostages”.
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC reminded the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh “to refrain from taking hostages”.
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/25, Nagorny-Karabakh conflict: 60,000 civilians flee fighting in south-western Azerbaijan, 19 August 1993.
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated that “hostage-taking” of civilians is, in particular, prohibited.
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, with respect to civilian persons who refrain from acts of hostility, that “the taking of hostages” is prohibited.
In a press release in 1994, the ICRC urged parties to the conflict in Chechnya “to refrain from taking hostages”.
In a communication to the press in 1995, the ICRC stated that it was “alarmed by the dramatic events taking place in the town of Budyonnovsk, where Chechen fighters have taken hostage hundreds of civilians” and condemned “the taking of hostages in Budyonnovsk … which violates norms of international humanitarian law”.
ICRC, Communication to the Press, ICRC Moscow, 17 June 1995.
In 1997, in a working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC proposed that the war crime of “taking of hostages”, when committed in an international armed conflict, together with the crime of hostage-taking, as a serious violation of IHL applicable in non-international armed conflicts, be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, §§ 1(a)(vii) and 3(iii).
In 1985, in a report on violations of the laws of war in Nicaragua, Americas Watch reported an incident in which the leader of an armed opposition group threatened to kill 23 captured soldiers unless ten Miskito prisoners were released. The report commented that this behaviour “reflects a serious disregard for the rights of prisoners under [common] Article 3” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, p. 43.
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states that “the taking of hostages” shall remain prohibited.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 3(2)(c), IRRC, No. 282, 1991, p. 332.
In 2008, the armed groups party to the DRC Pledge of Commitment, “deeply deploring the insecurity that has prevailed for a long time in the province of North Kivu, causing massive displacements of populations and enormous suffering of civilians as well as massive violations of human rights”, undertook to “strictly observe rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law, notably … [to] release persons … taken hostage for a crime of opinion or for belonging to insurgent organisations.”