Third Geneva Convention of 1949

By Raunak Samdani, National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi

Editor’s Note: 47 countries were signatories to the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which includes India. The Convention mainly deals with the origin of the Red Cross and the treatment of prisoners of war.

Introduction

This project examines and studies the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, along with briefly looking into the origin and its historical factors.

The conditions and places of captivity were more precisely defined, particularly with regard to the labour of prisoners of war, their financial resources, the relief they receive, and the judicial proceedings instituted against them. The Convention establishes the principle that prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities. The Convention has five annexes containing various model regulations and identity and other cards.

Firstly, the origin of the International Committee of Red Cross is discussed, since this organisation was the one to push for and pioneer the idea of an international convention for the protection, care and treatment of wounded soldiers, prisoners of war and civilian persons in wartime.

Then, the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 1929 is examined, since that convention was the predecessor of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. The various rights and regulations within this convention are given a look.

Following this, the drafting steps and method of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 are observed.

Thereafter, the common articles in the four conventions of 1949 are discussed, giving special emphasis to Article 3.

Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, which defines Prisoner of War, is then examined.

The next subtopic is the summarised analysis of the various articles and issues within the convention, followed by the conclusion.

Before the Third Geneva Convention of 1949

Formation of the Red Cross

International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seek for humanitarian reasons to limit the effects of armed conflict. IHL protects persons who are not or who are no longer participating in hostilities and it restricts the means and methods of warfare. IHL is also known as the law of war and the law of armed conflict.

International humanitarian law is founded on the principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality. Its roots extend to such historic concepts of justice as Babylon’s Hammurabic Code, the Code of Justinian from the Byzantine Empire and the Lieber Code used during the United States Civil War.[i]

In 1859 Henry Dunant, a Swiss citizen, witnessed the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino and was horrified by the sight of thousands of wounded soldiers lying helpless and abandoned with no one to care for them. This experience led him to suggest the setting up of voluntary relief societies who could be trained, during peacetime, to care for the wounded in time of war. He also called for an international agreement to be drawn up to protect the wounded, and those who looked after them, from further attack. In 1863 Henri Dunant arranged an unofficial international conference at which it was agreed that each country should form a relief organisation capable of assisting the Army Medical Services in wartime. This was how the Red Cross began.

In 1864 governments were invited to send representatives to a diplomatic conference. As a result 12 European nations signed a treaty stating that in future wars they would care for all sick and wounded military personnel, regardless of nationality. They would also recognise the neutrality of medical personnel, hospitals and ambulances identified by the emblem of a red cross on a white background. The treaty was called the Geneva Convention. This Convention was concerned only with soldiers wounded on the battlefield. Over the years, however, it has been expanded to cover everyone caught up in conflicts but not actually taking an active part in the fighting.

There are now four Geneva Conventions, which were drawn up in 1949. They cover armed forces on land and at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. And all of them have now been accepted by virtually every State in the world. Britain ratified the four Conventions in 1957.

In addition, two new Protocols (a Protocol is an addition or amendment to a Convention) were drawn up in 1977 at a diplomatic conference (attended by Britain).[ii]

Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 1929

Provisions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war are contained in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907. In the course of World War I they revealed several deficiencies as well as a lack of precision. Such defects were partly overcome by special agreements made between belligerents in Berne in 1917 and 1918. In 1921, the International Red Cross Conference held at Geneva expressed the wish that a special convention on the treatment of prisoners of war be adopted. The International Committee of the Red Cross drew up a draft convention which was submitted to the Diplomatic Conference convened at Geneva in 1929. The Convention does not replace but only completes the provisions of the Hague regulations. The most important innovations consisted in the prohibition of reprisals and collective penalties, the organization of prisoners’ work, the designation, by the prisoners, of representatives and the control exercised by protecting Powers.[iii]

The 1929 treaty included the following fundamental POW rights:

  • Prisoners of war are in the custody of the hostile Government, not of the individuals which captured them.
  • (POWs) shall at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden.
  • Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and honour. Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.
  • The detaining Power is required to provide for the maintenance of prisoners of war in its charge.
  • Differences of treatment between prisoners are permissible only if such differences are based on the military rank, the state of physical or mental health, the professional abilities, or the sex of those who benefit from them.
  • Every prisoner of war is required to declare, if he is interrogated on the subject, his true names and rank, or his regimental number. If he infringes this rule, he exposes himself to a restriction of the privileges accorded to prisoners of his category.
  • No pressure shall be exercised on prisoners to obtain information regarding the situation in their armed forces or their country. Prisoners who refuse to reply may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasantness or disadvantages of any kind whatsoever.
  • Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress or other place, and may be required not to go beyond certain fixed limits. They may also be interned in fenced camps; they shall not be confined or imprisoned except as a measure indispensable for safety or health, and only so long as circumstances exist which necessitate such a measure.
  • Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent statue, according to their rink and their ability….  It is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.[iv]

The Third Geneva Convention was signed by 47 countries among all over the world. Countries like Brazil, America, Bulgaria, Belgium, Bolivia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Austria, China, Denmark, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Britain, Greece, France, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, India, Latvia, Mexico, Luxembourg, Nicaragua, Netherlands, Persia, Norway, Poland, Serbia, Portugal, Croatia and Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Siam, Switzerland, Turkey, Venezuela, Uruguay, had signed the Third Geneva Convention. USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Japan was (were) the two countries that did not sign the Geneva Convention.

The 1929 version was not perfect. Some armies participating in World War II either blatantly disregarded it, or leapt upon vulgar interpretations of it to justify war crimes.

Several nations failed to abide by the Geneva Convention during World War II. As a result of this, the convention met for the fourth time to redefine and establish the rules to protect future veterans. (Simpkin) There were 130,000 POWs captured during World War II. Japan killed the most American POWs with a staggering rate at forty percent of 27,465. (Reynolds 10) It was these outrageous events of World War II that led to the Geneva Convention of 1949, which righted the wrongs of the previous conventions.

The 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was replaced by the third Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 (Geneva Convention III). It is no longer in operation following the universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The present Convention contains 143 Articles whereas the 1929 Convention had only 97. It became necessary to revise the 1929 Convention on a number of points owing to the changes that had occurred in the conduct of warfare and the consequences thereof, as well as in the living condition of peoples. Experience had shown that the daily life of prisoners depended specifically on the interpretation given to the general regulations. Consequently, certain regulations were given a more explicit form which was lacking in the preceding provisions. Since the text of the Convention is to be posted in all prisoner of war camps (see Article 41) it has to be comprehensible not only to the authorities but also to the ordinary reader at any time. The categories of persons entitled to prisoner of war status were broadened in accordance with Conventions I and II. The conditions and places of captivity were more precisely defined, in particular with regard to the labour of prisoners of war, their financial resources, the relief they receive and the judicial proceedings instituted against them. The Convention establishes the principle that prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities (Article 118).

The Third Geneva Convention, 1949

Drafting of the convention

Up to 1949, the Geneva Conventions were designed to assist only the victims of wars between States. The principle of respect for human personality, the basis on which all the Conventions rest, had found expression in them only in its application to military personnel. Actually, however, it was concerned with people as human beings, without regard to their uniform, their allegiance, their race or their beliefs, without regard even to any obligations which the authority on which they depended might have assumed in their name or in their behalf.[v]

The International Committee of the Red Cross followed its usual methods. The available literature was gathered together and the points on which the law needed expanding, confirming or modifying brought out. Draft Conventions were then drawn up with expert help from Governments, National Red Cross Societies and other relief Societies. Several meetings were convened in Geneva for this purpose, the most important being the Preliminary Conference of National Red Cross Societies in 1946, and the Conference of Government Experts of 1947, which marked a decisive step forward. The International Committee then drew up complete texts and presented them to the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference at Stockholm in 1948. They were adopted there with certain amendments. After passing through these various stages, the draft texts were taken as the only working document for the Diplomatic Conference which, convened by the Swiss Federal Council, as depositary of the Conventions, met at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, under the chairmanship of Mr. Max Petitpierre, Federal Councillor and Head of the Political Department. Fifty-nine States were officially represented by delegations with full powers to discuss the texts and four States sent observers. Experts from the International Committee gave daily co-operation in the technical matters.

On August 12, 1949, seventeen delegations signed the four Conventions. The others signed either at a special meeting called for the purpose on December 8 of the same year, or subsequently up to the last date of signing, February 12, 1950, at which time the number of signatory States was sixty-one. Certain reservations made at the time of signing refer only to individual provisions and do not affect the authority or general structure of the instruments.

Before entering into force for any country, the Conventions must be ratified by the Governments concerned. Switzerland and Yugoslavia were the first to ratify, and six months later, on October 21, 1950, the Geneva Conventions entered into force as between those two countries. They came into operation for the other countries six months after each of them ratified. As from October 21, 1950, the new Conventions have become a part of positiveinternational law and are thus open to accession by States which were not among the originalsignatories.[vi]

Common clauses in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949

International treaties often contain clauses of a general nature in which the guiding principles and the extent and conditions of application are stated. In the 1929 Geneva Conventions, clauses of this nature-they were quite brief-occurred either in the body of the Conventions, or in the Final Provisions. In the 1949 Conventions, on the other hand, they are found mostly in the first few Articles, and their wording is practically identical in the four Conventions.This position at the head of the text makes them all the moreimpressive; the identity of wording precludes divergent interpretation and the disputes it may give rise to. It is possible to see from the outset what each Convention is about, what is its object and what is the general spirit which informs it.

In the 4 Geneva conventions of 1949, the common provisions which fix the scope of the Conventions, or directly or indirectly interest the Red Cross, insofar as they modify or extend the other agreements include Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 47, 48, 127, 144. The Conventions provide, in conclusion, identical Articles dealing with signature, ratification, adhesion and denunciation.[vii]

Article 3 of the Conventions

The most important of these articles is Article 3. To borrow the phrase of one of the delegates, Article 3 is like a “Convention in miniature”. It applies to non-international conflicts only, and will be the only Article applicable to them until such time as a special agreement between the Parties has brought into force between them all or part of the other provisions of the Convention. [p.35] It is very different from the original draft produced by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which provided for the application of the Conventions in their entirety. But the wording finally adopted was certainly the best amongst the various drafts prepared during the Conference. It has the merit of being simple and clear. It at least ensures the application of the rules of humanity which are recognized as essential by civilized nations and provides a legal basis for interventions by the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization — interventions which in the past were all too often refused on the ground that they represented intolerable interference in the internal affairs of a State. This text has the additional advantage of being applicable automatically, without any condition in regard to reciprocity. Its observance does not depend upon preliminary discussions on the nature of the conflict or the particular clauses to be respected. It is true that it merely provides for the application of the principles of the Convention, but it defines those principles and in addition lays down certain rules for their application. Finally, it has the advantage of expressing, in each of the four Conventions, the common principle which governs them.[viii]

Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions, marked a breakthrough, as it covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. These types of conflicts vary greatly. They include traditional civil wars, internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States or internal conflicts in which third States or a multinational force intervenes alongside the government. Common Article 3 establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted. It is like a mini-Convention within the Conventions as it contains the essential rules of the Geneva Conventions in a condensed format and makes them applicable to conflicts not of an international character:

  • It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trial.
  • It requires that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked be collected and cared for.
  • It grants the ICRC the right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict.
  • It calls on the parties to the conflict to bring all or parts of the Geneva Conventions into force through so-called special agreements.
  • It recognizes that the application of these rules does not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.
  • Given that most armed conflicts today are non-international, applying Common Article 3 is of the utmost importance. Its full respect is required.[ix]

Article 4 – Definition of Prisoners of War

Article 4 is of primary importance among the opening provisions; it lists, in two paragraphs, the categories of persons entitled to the benefit of the Convention, dividing them into those who fall into the enemy’s power and those who are already in enemy hands or have passed under the control of a neutral

Power, but who should, by analogy, also have the benefit of the treatment accorded to prisoners of war. Some of these categories were not included in the previous Conventions. Particularly important are partisans, i.e. members of organized resistance movements in occupied territory. These, for the future, are given the same standing as militias and volunteer corps, and must fulfil the same conditions (Art. 4, A, sub-par. 2). Reference is also made to members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government not recognized by the Detaining Power (Art. 4, A, sub-par. 3), crews of merchant ships and civil aircraft (Art. 4, A, sub-par. 5), and finally, persons arrested in enemy territory, solely because they belong to the armed forces of the occupied country (Art. 4, B,sub-par. I).

Other categories are also specified, such as military internees in neutral countries (Art. 4, B, sub-par. 2), or persons who accompany the armed forces without actually forming part of them (Art. 4, A, sub-par. 4j. This second category should particularly interest Red Cross Societies, as it could include units responsible for the well-being of troops. To be entitled to prisoner of war status, persons who accompany the armed forces should have obtained authorization to do so and be supplied with an I7 identity card, as provided for in the Annex to the Convention (Annex IV, A); the possession of a card is not, however, a condition sine qua non of status.

Two other points deserve mention. The Article applies notonly to troops who are “captured”, but to all who fall into enemy hands during the conflict, and consequently to the members of armed forces who capitulate en masse. It makes an express reservation (Article 4, C) concerning the status of retained religious and medical personnel. This status is defined by the First Geneva Convention. The 1929 Convention made no such reserve.

Article 5 also represents an important advance. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons having committed a belligerent act belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the Convention until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. An end had to be made-and the practice outlawed-of summary executions, without trial, of men who afterwards prove to have been regular belligerents.

Summarised analysis of the topics within the convention

General Protection of Prisoners of War

In Part II of the Convention, corresponding to the General Provisions of the 1929 text, it is forbidden to transfer prisoners to a Power which is not party to the Convention; in case of transfer to a Power which is party to the Convention, the Power which has ceded them continues to have a contingent responsibility for their treatment, and the transferring Power is even obliged to receive them back again on its territory if their treatment is not satisfactory (Art. 12, Par. 2 and 3). Article 15 provides expressly that the Detaining Power shall be bound to give free, the medical attention required by prisoners; this obligation is discussed more fully in Article 30.

Regulations for the Internment of Prisoners

The Articles dealing with internment reintroduce the principle of release on parole, for which provision was made in the Hague Regulations. Release on parole should be accorded” particularly in cases where this may contribute to the improvement” of the state of health of prisoners (Art. 21, Par. 2). Prisoners now have better protection against air attack. The Detaining Powers shall notify each other of the location of the prisoner of war camps, and now, therefore, relatives should know where the prisoners are. Moreover, prisoner of war camps (and only such camps) shall be indicated by the letters “PG” or “PW”, whenever military considerations permit (Art. 23, Par. 4).

Again, when a camp is closed down, the canteen profits shall be handed “to an international welfare organization, to be employed for the benefit of prisoners of war of the same nationality as those who have contributed to the fund (Art. 28, Par. 3).

Religion and Medical Care

Particular attention was devoted to religion, medical care, and intellectual and physical activities. For practical reasons, and for the benefit of Camp Commandants, the stipulations of the First Convention dealing with the status and privileges of medical and religious personnel retained to assist prisoners of war were reproduced in Articles 33 and 35 of the Third Convention. Moreover, doctors and ministers of religion not attached to the Army Medical Service, or not official Army Chaplains, who, consequently, become prisoners of war if they fall into enemy hands, may be called upon by the Detaining Power to act as doctors or chaplains for the benefit of their comrades. In such case, they are to be treated as retained personnel (Art. 32 and 36).

Finally, we note that under Article 30, Paragraph 3, prisoners of war shall have the attention preferably of medical personnel of the Power on which they depend (whether their home country or an ally), and if possible, of their nationality.

Transfers, Labour and Financial Reserves

Safeguards surrounding the transfer of prisoners have been reinforced in Chapter VIII, especially in case of transport by sea or by air. In both these cases, full nominal rolls shall be drawn up before departure (Art. 46, Par. 3). The Detaining Power may limit the weight of the luggage each prisoner may take, but in such case the Camp Commandant shall, in agreement with the prisoners’ representative, ensure the transport of collective goods (in particular, stocks of relief supplies, and community kit) andthe baggage the prisoners are not authorized to take with them (Art. 48, Par. 3). The work of prisoners is more strictly regulated. The category of labour on which they may be employed is given in a limitative list (Art. 50). Dangerous work, especially the removal of mines, is strictly prohibited, unless the prisoners volunteer for it (Art. 52).

In Section IV, dealing with financial resources, Article 60 provides for a monthly payment, called “an advance of pay”, to all prisoners, and not to officers only. Thus, men who, because of sickness or any other reason, are unable to work and draw pay will not for the future be left without money for their canteen purchases (Art. 60). Furthermore, remittances from prisoners to their relatives are ensured under the procedure laid down in Article 63, Paragraph 3.

Prisoners’ Representatives (Spokesmen)

Articles 79 to 81 make more explicit the functions and prerogatives of the spokesman, whose duty it is to represent them in dealings with the Protecting Powers, the International Committee, or “any other organization which may assist them”.

Penal and Disciplinary Sanctions

The Chapter dealing with penal and disciplinary sanctions is now more complete; the following points are of particular interest.

Prisoners prosecuted for acts committed prior to capture shall retain the protection of the Convention (Art. 85); Article 99states explicitly the principle that penal law may not be made retrospective; Article 101 increases to at least six months the

period which must elapse between the communication of the death sentence to the Protecting Power and the execution ; and Article 105 forms a catalogue of the minimum rights and means of defence to which an accused prisoner of war is entitled.

Repatriation and Accommodation in Neutral Countries

Articles on the repatriation of prisoners or their nation in neutral countries during hostilities deserve special attention. The Convention gives the categories of wounded or sick who are entitled to automatic repatriation and indicates what cases may lead to accommodation in neutral countries. The principles are stated in Article IIO; particular cases are decided in accordance with the Model Agreement annexed to the Convention (Annex I), which, in spite of its title, is made prescriptive, failing special agreements between the interested Powers (Art. IIO, Par. 3 and 4).

The appointment, duties and functioning of Mixed Medical Commissions, whose task it is to· designate the prisoners eligible for repatriation or accommodation in neutral countries, are henceforth regulated in detail in the fourteen Articles of the Regulations concerning Mixed Medical Commissions, annexed to the Convention (Art. IIZ and Annex II). These Regulations are prescriptive; to meet a need which made itself felt during the recent War, the Medical Commissions are made to depend more closely on one single, central organization, namely the International Committee.

Accommodation of prisoners in neutral countries is maintained, even though it proved impracticable throughout the last War. Certain types of wounds and illnesses are mentioned (Art. IIO, Par. z); so are prisoners who have been a long time captive (Art. 109, Par. z), and even other categories, when circumstances suggest (Art. III). Detaining Powers “shall endeavour, with the co-operation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries” of prisoners (Art. 109, Par. z). Among wounded and sick prisoners submitted for examinationto the Mixed Medical Commissions should be included those proposed by the Power on which they depend, or by an organization recognised by that Power, and « giving assistance to the prisoners; this latter expression could obviously cover National Red Cross Societies (Art. II3).

The situations which arise at the end of a modern war have shown that the I929 Convention, in making the repatriation of prisoners coincide with “the conclusion of peace”, could be distinctly unfavourable for the men concerned. In future, under Article II8, prisoners must be repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities”. In default of agreement between the interested States on this point, each Detaining Power shall at once draw up and carry out a plan of repatriation in conformity with the above principle.

Death of Prisoners

We may note here the care which the new Convention devotes to questions of burial or cremation and the upkeep of graves (Art. I20, Par. 3 to 6). The last Paragraph in particular, following similar provisions of the First Geneva Convention, obliges the Detaining Power to set up a Graves Registration Service for prisoners who die in captivity; among its duties is to transmit lists of graves to the Power of origin.

Application of the Convention

Article I26 makes provision for the Delegates of the Protecting Powers to supervise the application of the Convention. Such Delegates are, for the future, authorized to travel to the points of departure, passage, or arrival of transferred prisoners. The last Paragraph of the Article gives the visits of the Committee’s Delegates the same standing, by providing that they “shall enjoy the same prerogatives” as the representatives of the Protecting Powers.[x]

CONCLUSION

From The Hague Regulations to the 1929 Convention, from the 1929 Convention to the present Convention, the “law of prisoners of war” has thus made considerable progress. It is no exaggeration to say that prisoners of war in present or future conflicts are covered by a veritable humanitarian and administrative statute which not only protects them from the dangers of war, but also ensures that the conditions in which they are interned are as satisfactory as possible. Obviously, rules as detailed as these were drawn up primarily with a view to lengthy conflicts, such as the last two world wars; but they also have the tremendous advantage of defining, in practice and in relation to certain specific circumstances, the position of the human being as such in the present-day international system. The determination of the statute of the prisoner of war went beyond the stage of declarations of principle a long time ago, and of all the statements made on the international level with regard to the individual human being, it is this which has been translated into reality to the greatest extent. The fact that men can reach agreement to apply such an advanced and balanced statute to the enemy in war-time should be seen as a good omen for other endeavours aimed at giving the individual his rightful place in the modem world and thus establishing a better equilibrium.[xi]

Edited by Sinjini Majumdar

[i]American Red Cross, Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols, available at http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3640104_IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[ii]Peace Pledge Union, GENEVA CONVENTIONan introduction, available at http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[iii]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929, available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/305,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[iv]Duhaime.org editors, Duhamie.org, Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, available at

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/InternationalLaw/LawArticle-150/Geneva-Convention-on-the-Treatment-of-Prisoners-of-War.aspx,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[v]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS., Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949., available athttp://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?OpenDocument,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[vi]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949

COMMENTARY, available athttp://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-III.pdf,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[vii]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, Analysis for the Use of National Red Cross Societies, Vol. II, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC_analysis-Vol-2.pdf,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[viii]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS,Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949., Commentary – Art. 3. Part I : General provisions, available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?OpenDocument,last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[ix]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, available at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm, last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[x]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, Analysis for the Use of National Red Cross Societies, Vol. II, available athttp://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC_analysis-Vol-2.pdf, , last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

[xi]INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949

COMMENTARY, available at http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-III.pdf, last checked on 21 Sep, 2013

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *