Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter41_rule146_sectione
Timestamp: 2020-08-05 23:29:47
Document Index: 232238763

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 62', '§ 55', '§ 4', '§ 32', '§ 137', '§ 8', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 32', '§ 145', '§ 75', '§ 15', '§ 527', '§ 533', '§ 214']

Article 51(6) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.”
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 51(6). Article 51 was adopted by 77 votes in favour, one against and 16 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 163.
Article 3(2) of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct [mines, booby-traps and other devices], either in offence, defence or by way of reprisals, against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians.”
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, to the 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, Geneva, 10 October 1980, Article 3(2).
Article 3(7) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It is prohibited in all circumstances to direct [mines, booby-traps and other devices], either in offence, defence or by way of reprisals, against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians or civilian objects.”
Section 5.6 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “The United Nations force shall not engage in reprisals against civilians.”
Section 7.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin which deals in Section 7.1 with the protection of, inter alia, “persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations, including civilians”, states: “The following acts against any of the persons mentioned in section 7.1 are prohibited at any time and in any place: … reprisals”.
Croatia’s Soldiers’ Manual (1992), in a part dealing with civilians, provides: “Measures of reprisal and the taking of hostages are prohibited.”
Croatia, Rules of Conduct for Soldiers, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, p. 5, § 3.
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “Reprisals may be taken against enemy armed forces, [and] enemy civilians other than those in occupied territory.”
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides: “In the context of armed conflict, reprisals are prohibited … [a]gainst civilians.”
The meaning of protected persons is not exclusively referring to the Geneva Conventions … but also referring to the customary sources, such as the moral values which are generally recognized and exist among the international community, and other Conventions … Reprisals against civilian[s] other than protected civilians under Geneva Convention IV [are] prohibited as far as they are not engage[d in] the conflict and [do] not violate the law[s] and customs of war. The civilian[s] other than protected civilians under Geneva Convention IV will [be] protected … as necessary.
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Reprisals against civilians/war victims are prohibited”.
The manual further states: “Since civilians do not take part in hostilities, it is always our Duty to… [p]rotect them against … vengeance (reprisals).”
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) lists among the persons against whom the taking of reprisals is prohibited “civilian persons and objects”. It refers, however, to Article 46 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I (relative to the prohibition of reprisals against the wounded, the sick and medical personnel protected under the Convention).
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991), referring to Article 51(6) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and stating that this provision “contains another rule prohibiting reprisal attacks on civilian populations and individual civilians”, states:
It may appear remarkable that not until the advent of the Additional Protocol was it possible to obtain general protection for civilians against reprisals. Protection for civilians in this respect remains inadequate, however, as long as the majority of states have not ratified the Protocol.
The [Swedish] International Humanitarian Law Committee considers that Article 51 can be of great importance in improving protection for civilian populations and civilian objects. It is of the greatest importance for the article to be applied in such a way that the intended humanitarian purpose is achieved as far as possible.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section § 3.2.1.5, pp. 50 and 51.
While noting that the Swedish IHL Committee strongly discourages even this possibility in view of its manifestly inhuman effect, the manual further states:
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Reprisals are prohibited against … civilian persons”.
Under the Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, “a commander who, contrary to the provisions of international law on means and methods of warfare, intentionally: (a) … leads an attack against [the civilian population or civilians] for the reason of reprisals” is punishable.
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 262(2)(a).
(g) … reprisals …
Under Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, “a commander who, contrary to the provisions of international law on means and methods of warfare, intentionally: (a) … leads an attack against [the civilian population or civilians] for the reason of reprisals” is punishable.
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Article 262(2)(a).
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) provides for the punishment of “anyone who [in the event of armed conflict] should … carry out or order … reprisals or violent acts or threats in order to terrify [the civilian population]”.
In 2010, in the Couso case, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court was called upon to decide an appeal in the case concerning the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America. In deciding upon one of the issues raised in the appeal on breach of the law due to the failure to apply Article 611 of the Penal Code (1995), the Court noted:
2. Article 611 of the PC [Penal Code] effectively punishes
1. … [M]akes the civilian population the object of … reprisals”.
The Court upheld the appeal concerning breach of the law and held:
At the CDDH, during a discussion in Committee I on a French proposal regarding a provision on reprisals within the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Belarus, opposing the French proposal and referring to a number of international instruments, stated:
Any toleration of the possibility of taking reprisals, especially against the civilian population, would be in radical conflict with the spirit and meaning of the Geneva Conventions … Furthermore, it would run counter to a number of resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly … Thus, any attempt to commit reprisals against the civilian population represented … a serious blow against the Geneva Conventions, [Additional] Protocol I … and a whole series of international instruments already adopted.
Belarus, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. IX, CDDH/I/SR.47, 29 April 1976, p. 81, § 62.
At the CDDH, Belarus stated: “The taking of reprisals against a civilian population must be prohibited.”
Belarus, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. IX, CDDH/I/SR.48, 30 April 1976, p. 94, § 55.
Upon ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, China declared:
Although [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] does not apply to civilian persons outside enemy-occupied areas and consequently does not completely meet humanitarian requirements, it is found to be in accord with the interest of protecting civilian persons in occupied territory and in certain other cases.
China, Reservations made upon ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, 28 December 1956, § 4.
In 1973, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly relative to respect for human rights in times of armed conflict, China stated that civilians should not be the object of reprisals.
China, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/ SR.1450, 29 November 1973, § 32.
Reprisals are prohibited against … civilians … The prohibition applies in respect of all weapons. In consequence, they (i.e. protected persons and objects) can never become targets of any attack, including nuclear attacks.
At the CDDH, Finland stated: “The main intention of paragraph 4 [of draft Article 46 which became Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] was to extend the protection to the civilian population as a whole. That was desirable.”
At the CDDH, in its explanations of vote on Article 46 of draft Additional Protocol I (which became Article 51), the representative of the German Democratic Republic stated that his delegation
gave particular support to paragraph 4 [which became paragraph 6 of Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], which contained a clear prohibition on attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals. That prohibition, he was convinced, had the same importance, and was of the same absolute nature, as the prohibition of reprisals against prisoners of war, the wounded and the sick, which were already contained in the Geneva Conventions. His delegation would therefore regard any reservation on the prohibition as incompatible with the humanitarian object and purpose of the Protocol.
German Democratic Republic, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 167, § 137.
In 1983, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General in response to Iranian allegations relative to attacks on civilians and civilian objects by Iraq, Iraq recalled its position according to which the bombardment of cities and economic installations had been initiated by the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1980. It also questioned the Islamic Republic of Iran’s statement: “Although the Iraqi cities are well within the range of our artillery … Iran has no intention of retaliation against civilians.”
Iraq, Letter dated 2 May 1983 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/15743, 4 May 1983.
In 1987, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General following a meeting between officials of both parties to the Iran–Iraq War, Iraq stated:
Iraq has long hesitated before responding to the cruel and deliberate bombardments of Iraqi towns contemptuously carried out by the Iranian régime; over a period of several months that régime had on numerous occasions fired missiles on Baghdad and pounded Basra, Sulaymaniyah and other Iraqi towns with its heavy artillery. Iraq had not retaliated for those acts of aggression, choosing instead to issue repeated warnings that had gone unheeded. [These acts had forced] Iraq to deter the aggressor … The following decisions were taken … First: Iraq will halt its bombardment of Iranian towns for two weeks as of … Iraq will consider itself released from this commitment and will resume its bombings forcefully and on greater scale if the forces of the Iranian régime shell Iraqi towns and residential areas and if the Iranian régime launches a new assault against Iraqi territory and Iraq’s international borders. Secondly: This temporary halt in the bombing of towns is contingent upon the position of the Iranian régime with regard to peace; that régime must unequivocally espouse a new position consistent with international law.
Iraq, Letter dated 18 February 1987 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/18704, 18 February 1987.
On the basis of a reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that reprisals “must not be directed, in any way, against … civilians … but [have] to be confined to purely military targets”.
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Malaysia stated that “civilian populations … should not be the object of reprisals” and that “attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited”. It referred to paragraph 7 of UN General Assembly Resolution 2675 (XXV) and Article 51(6) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
In 2006, in a statement before the UN Security Council regarding the situation in Gaza, the permanent representative of Norway stated:
The current operations raise a number of issues of international law, whether they are police operations or military operations. … Any countermeasures against the civilian population are unacceptable under international law.
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Norway before the UN Security Council regarding the situation in Gaza, 30 June 2006.
In 1973, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly relative to respect for human rights in times of armed conflict, Romania stated:
International humanitarian law should be developed in two main directions. First, there should be increased protection for the civilian population and non-military objectives … To that end, it was essential to adopt the broadest possible definition of the civilian population and non-military objectives and to take steps to ensure their effective protection. Such steps should include: … the prohibition … of reprisals … and of any other act of terror directed against the civilian population.
Romania, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.1451, 1 December 1973, § 8.
Upon signature of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the USSR stated: “[The 1949 Geneva Convention IV] does not cover the civilian population in territory not occupied by the enemy and does not, therefore, completely meet humanitarian requirements.” The USSR upheld its reservations upon ratification of the said instruments.
USSR, Reservations made upon signature and maintained upon ratification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, 12 December 1949 and 10 May 1954, § 4.
In 1986, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council deplored “the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict” and expressed its deepening concern over the widening of the conflict [between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq] through the escalation of attacks on purely civilian targets”.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PV.2730, 22 December 1986, p. 3.
In 1988, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council strongly deplored “the escalation of hostilities between these two countries [the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq], particularly the attacks against civilian targets and cities”. The members of the Security Council also insisted that “Iran and Iraq immediately cease all such attacks and desist forthwith from all acts that lead to the escalation of the conflict”.
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PV.2798, 16 March 1988, p. 2.
General Assembly Resolution 2444 (XXIII) adopted in 1968 affirmed Resolution XXVIII of the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross and the basic humanitarian principle applicable in all armed conflicts laid down therein that “it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian population as such”.
ICRC, Protection of the Civilian Population against the Dangers of Hostilities, Documents submitted to the First Session of the Conference of Government Experts, Geneva, 24 May–12 June 1971, Vol. III, January 1971, p. 38.
In Resolution 2675 (XXV) on basic principles for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts, unanimously adopted in 1970, the UN General Assembly stated: “Civilian populations, or individual members thereof, should not be the object of reprisals, forcible transfers or other assaults on their integrity.”
UN General Assembly, Res. 2675 (XXV), 9 December 1970, § 7, voting record: 109-0-8-10.
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly condemned:
The ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly in North Kivu and South Kivu, northern Katanga and other areas in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including armed violence and reprisals against the civilian population.
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/170, 16 December 2005, § 4(a), voting record: 102-3-67-19.
In 1984, in a message addressed to the Presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and of Iraq, the UN Secretary-General stated that he
was profoundly distressed on learning of the heavy civilian casualties caused by the aerial attack on the town of Banesh on 5 June 1984 … and the retaliatory and counter-retaliatory attacks that followed on towns in Iran and Iraq.
Deliberate military attacks on civilian areas cannot be condoned by the international community. The initiation of such attacks in the past, and the reprisals and counter-reprisals they provoke, have resulted in mounting loss of life and suffering to innocent and defenceless civilian populations. It is imperative that this immediately cease.
UN Secretary-General, Message dated 9 June 1984 to the Presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Iraq, UN Doc. S/16611, 11 June 1984.
In 1993, in a periodic report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights noted:
The Special Rapporteur also received allegations of individual murders inspired by ethnic revenge. One concerned Radislav and Marina Komjenac, two elderly civilians – said to be Bosnian Serbs – who were taken from their homes in Sarajevo and summarily executed on 26 June 1993. The killings appear to have been in retaliation for a mortar attack which killed seven Muslim civilians in the old town. Government militia were alleged to be responsible. The Special Rapporteur wrote to the Government on 14 August 1993 expressing concern about the report and asking what steps had been taken to punish the perpetrators.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, § 32.
The Special Rapporteur also noted that in the Serb Krajina, Croats “have frequently been the victims of retaliations for actions of the Croatian armed forces”.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, § 145.
In 1994, in an interim report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights noted: “In July 1994, some 50 civilians were reportedly killed in an act of revenge for the murder of a prominent commander.”
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan, Interim report, UN Doc. A/49/650, 8 November 1994, § 75.
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts (1992), referring to Article 51(6) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are specifically prohibited: … (e) Civilians”.
151. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber is satisfied that there are substantial grounds to believe that the attack on Busurungi and surrounding villages on or about 9–10 May 2009 was launched by the FDLR with the aim of targeting both military objectives (FARDC positions in the village and surroundings) and the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in the hostilities. The Chamber is further satisfied that the FDLR soldiers who took part in the attack were aware of the civilian status of the victims and intended to attack the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in the hostilities since they were considered enemies. The Chamber therefore finds substantial grounds to believe that the war crimes of attacking civilians under article 8(2)(e)(i) of the [1998 ICC] Statute and murder under article 8(2)(c)(i) of the Statute were committed by the FDLR troops in Busurungi and surrounding villages on or about 9-10 May 2009.
In the Tadić case (Interlocutory Appeal) in 1995, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated that UN General Assembly Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of 1968 and Resolution 2675 (XXV) of 1970 were “declaratory of the principles of customary international law regarding the protection of civilian populations and property in armed conflicts of any kind”.
In the review of the indictment in the Martić case in 1996 in which the accused was held accountable for having knowingly and wilfully ordered the shelling of Zagreb in May 1995, the ICTY Trial Chamber I held:
15. … Does the fact that the attack was carried out as a reprisal reverse the illegality of the attack? The prohibition against attacking the civilian population as such as well as individual civilians must be respected in all circumstances regardless of the behaviour of the other party. The opinion of the great majority of legal authorities permits the Trial Chamber to assert that no circumstances would legitimise an attack against civilians even if it were a response proportionate to a similar violation perpetrated by the other party. The exclusion of the application of the principle of reprisals in the case of such fundamental humanitarian norms is confirmed by Article 1 Common to all Geneva Conventions. Under this provision, the High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances, even when the behaviour of the other party might be considered wrongful. The [ICJ] considered that this obligation does not derive only from the Geneva Conventions themselves but also from the general principles of humanitarian law …
16. The prohibition on reprisals against the civilian population or individual civilians which is applicable to all armed conflicts, is reinforced by the texts of various instruments. General Assembly resolution 2675, underscoring the need for measures to ensure better protection of human rights in armed conflicts of all types, posits that “civilian populations, or individual members thereof, should not be the object of reprisals”. Furthermore, Article 51(6) of Protocol I … states an unqualified prohibition because “in all circumstances, attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited” …
ICTY, Martić case, Review of the Indictment, 8 March 1996, §§ 15–17.
527. … With regard to civilians in combat zones, reprisals against them are prohibited by Article 51(6) of the First Additional Protocol of 1977 … The question nevertheless arises as to whether these provisions, assuming that they were not declaratory of customary international law, have subsequently been transformed into general rules of international law. In other words, are those States which have not ratified the First Protocol … nevertheless bound by general rules having the same purport as those two provisions? Admittedly, there does not seem to have emerged recently a body of State practice consistently supporting the proposition that one of the elements of custom, namely usus or diuturnitas has taken shape. This is however an area where opinio iuris sive necessitatis may play a much greater role than usus, as a result of the … Martens Clause. In the light of the way States and courts have implemented it, this Clause clearly shows that principles of international humanitarian law may emerge through a customary process under the pressure of the demands of humanity or the dictates of public conscience, even where State practice is scant or inconsistent. The other element, in the form of opinio necessitatis, crystallising as a result of the imperatives of humanity or public conscience, may turn out to be the decisive element heralding the emergence of a general rule or principle of humanitarian law.
528. The question of reprisals against civilians is a case in point. It cannot be denied that reprisals against civilians are inherently a barbarous means of seeking compliance with international law. The most blatant reason for the universal revulsion that usually accompanies reprisals is that they may not only be arbitrary but are also not directed specifically at the individual authors of the initial violation. Reprisals typically are taken in situations where the individuals personally responsible for the breach are either unknown or out of reach. These retaliatory measures are aimed instead at other more vulnerable individuals or groups. They are individuals or groups who may not even have any degree of solidarity with the presumed authors of the initial violation; they may share with them only the links of nationality and allegiance to the same rulers.
529. In addition, the reprisal killing of innocent persons, more or less chosen at random, without any requirement of guilt or any form of trial, can safely be characterized as a blatant infringement of the most fundamental principles of human rights. It is difficult to deny that a slow but profound transformation of humanitarian law under the pervasive influence of human rights has occurred. As a result belligerent reprisals against civilians and fundamental rights of human beings are absolutely inconsistent legal concepts. This trend towards the humanisation of armed conflict is amongst other things confirmed by the works of the United Nations International Law Commission on State Responsibility …
530. It should be added that while reprisals could have had a modicum of justification in the past, when they constituted practically the only effective means of compelling the enemy to abandon unlawful acts of warfare and to comply in future with international law, at present they can no longer be justified in this manner …
531. Due to the pressure exerted by the requirements of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, a customary rule of international law has emerged on the matter under discussion.
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, §§ 527–531.
Considering practice of States, international organizations, the ILC and the ICRC, as well as previous practice of the ICTY, the Trial Chamber then stated:
The aforementioned elements seem to support the contention that the demands of humanity and the dictates of public conscience, as manifested in opinio necessitatis, have by now brought about the formation of a customary rule also binding upon those few States that at some stage did not intend to exclude the abstract legal possibility of resorting to the reprisals under discussion.
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, § 533.
In a press release issued in 1983 concerning the Iran–Iraq War, the ICRC stressed: “Civilians must not be the object of attack, nor of reprisals.”
ICRC, Press Release No. 1479, Iran/Iraq: ICRC appeals to belligerents, 15 December 1983.
In a press release issued in 1984 concerning the Iran–Iraq War, the ICRC, after the bombardment of the Iranian town of Baneh “during which hundreds of civilians were killed or injured”, stated: “This murderous raid with its tragic consequences has provoked a spiral of reprisals and counter-reprisals against the inhabitants of Iraqi and Iranian towns.” The ICRC called upon “Iran and Iraq to cease immediately their current bombardment of defenceless civilians”.
ICRC, Press Release No. 1489, Bombing of Iraqi and Iranian Cities, 7 June 1984.
In a communication to the press in 2000 in connection with the hostilities in the Near East, the ICRC reminded all those taking active part in the violence that “reprisals against the civilian population” are absolutely and unconditionally prohibited.
In the War of 1914–1918 the illegality, except by way of reprisals, of aerial bombardment directed exclusively against the civilian population for the purpose of terrorisation or otherwise seems to have been generally admitted by the belligerents, – although this fact did not actually prevent attacks on centres of civilian population in the form either of reprisals or of attack against military objectives situated therein.
Lassa Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, Sixth edition, revised, Hersch Lauterpacht (ed.), Longmans, Green and Co., London/New York/Toronto, 1944, p. 414, § 214ea.