INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (IHL)

and

PHILIPPINE ACT ON CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL

HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE, AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST
HUMANITY (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9851)

A Lecture Before the Human Rights Law Class, Bulacan State University
College of Law, 1 June 2019, Saturday, 3pm-5pm

DR. REY OLIVER S. ALEJANDRINO, AB, LLB, LLM, DCL

Dean, Enverga Law School
Member, Panel of Experts on International Humanitarian Law and
International Human Rights Law
International Organization of Professionals in Humanitarian Assistance and
Protection (PHAP)
Geneva, Switzerland

1
 INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (IHL)

OUTLINE OF LECTURE

I INTRODUCTION
II ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF IHL
III NATURE AND SCOPE OF IHL
IV FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF IHL
V PROHIBITIONS UNDER THE IHL
VI PROTECTION UNDER THE IHL
VII IHL AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL LEGAL REGIMES
VIII DOMESTIC LAW ON IHL (REPUBLIC ACT 9851)
IX IMPLEMENTATION OF IHL

2
 INTRODUCTION

The Doctrines of Jus Ad Bellum vs. Jus In Bello

Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello are Latin words that both refer to war.

Jus Ad Bellum means "The Law to War." Under this doctrine, any

state can declare war on the ground that their reasons for such declaration
are “just” or it has "legitimate reasons to engage in war."

Jus In Bello means "The Law in Waging War." This doctrine is

concerned whether a war is conducted justly, regardless of whether or not
the initiation of hostilities was just. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the earliest
philosophers, enumerated what makes a just war which were intended to
protect civilians and guarantee that wars were not just fought for the
interest of private parties.

The purpose of international humanitarian law is to limit the suffering

caused by war by protecting and assisting its victims as far as possible.
The law therefore addresses the reality of a conflict without considering the
reasons for or legality of resorting to force. It regulates only those aspects
of the conflict which are of humanitarian concern. It is what is known as Jus
in Bello. Its provisions apply to the warring parties irrespective of the
reasons for the conflict and whether or not the cause upheld by either party
is just.

3
 The Jus Ad Bellum seeks to limit resort to force between States.
Under the UN Charter, States must refrain from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state
(Art. 2, para. 4). Exceptions to this principle are provided in case of self-
defence.

In the case of international armed conflict, it is often hard to

determine which State is guilty of violating the United Nations Charter. The
application of humanitarian law does not involve the denunciation of guilty
parties as that would be bound to arouse controversy and paralyze
implementation of the law, since each adversary would claim to be a victim
of aggression.

Moreover, IHL is intended to protect war victims and their

fundamental rights, no matter to which party they belong. That is why Jus
In Bello must remain independent of Jus Ad Bellum.

What is International Humanitarian Law?

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for

humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects
persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and
restricts the means and methods of warfare. It is also known as the law of
war or the law of armed conflict.

4
 International humanitarian law is part of international law, which is the
body of rules governing relations between States. It applies to armed
conflicts.

International Humanitarian Law applicable
 in armed conflicts means

international rules, established by treaty or custom, which are specifically

intended to solve humanitarian problems that arise directly from
international or non-international armed conflicts.

For humanitarian reasons, these rules protect persons and property

that are, or may be, affected by conflict by limiting conflicting parties’ rights
to choose their methods and means of warfare.

International Humanitarian Law, therefore, “humanizes” the conduct

of war. It limits the use of violence in armed conflicts by sparing those who
do not or no longer directly participate in hostilities known as “hors de
combat”. It limits the violence to weaken the military potential of the enemy.

What does the International Humanitarian Law govern?

5
International humanitarian law governs the conduct of both international
and internal armed conflicts.

International armed conflicts (IAC) are those in which at least two

States are involved. They are subject to a wide range of rules, including
those set out in the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I.

Non-international armed conflicts (NIAC) are those restricted to the

territory of a single State, involving either regular armed forces fighting
groups of armed dissidents, or armed groups fighting each other. A more
limited range of rules apply to internal armed conflicts and are laid down in
Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions as well as in Additional
Protocol II.

In Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1 (ICTY, Appeals Chamber),

July 15, 1999, para. 84, it defined international armed conflict, thus:

“It is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it

takes place between two or more States. In addition, in case of an
internal armed conflict breaking out on the territory of a State, it may
become international (or, depending upon the circumstances, be
international in character alongside an internal armed conflict) if (i)
another State intervenes in that conflict through its troops, or
alternatively if (ii) some of the participants in the internal armed

6
 conflict act on behalf of that other State.”

For there to be a violation of International Humanitarian Law, there

must be an armed conflict. In the same case of Tadic, it was ruled that an
armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between
States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and
organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.

It applies from the initiation of such armed conflicts and extends

beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace is
reached; or, in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is
achieved. Until that moment, international humanitarian law continues to
apply in the whole territory of the warring States or, in the case of internal
conflicts, the whole territory under the control of a party, whether or not
actual combat takes place there.

However, International Humanitarian Law does not apply in situations

of internal violence and tensions. This point has been clearly made in
Article 1 (2) of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, which
states, “This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal disturbances
and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence and
other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.”

7
 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF IHL

Ancient Custom

Many writers believe that the birth of modern International

Humanitarian Law occurred in 1864 with the adoption of the First Geneva
Convention. However, it should be emphasized that the rules contained in
this Convention and in the subsequent treaties were not completely new
but derived from customary rules and uses.

These ancient rules, promulgated as early as 3000 years ago, protect

certain categories of victims of armed conflicts or regulate the use of
certain means and methods of warfare. But these customs might not have
been adopted for a humanitarian purpose but rather with a purely tactical or
economical objective. Their effect was however humanitarian.

For example, the prohibition to poison wells which was very common
in African traditional law and reaffirmed in modern treaties was most probably
made in order to permit the exploitation of conquered territories than to spare
the lives of the local inhabitants. Similarly, the prohibition to kill prisoners of
war had for main objective to guarantee the availability of future slaves much
rather than to save the lives of former combatants.

In addition, warring armies in ancient times likewise observed the

practice of sparing the enemy’s field hospitals from bullets during hostilities.
The ancient Egyptian culture was marked by considerations for one’s fellow
beings even in times of armed conflict. The ‘seven works of True Mercy’

8
instructs its readers to ‘feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the
naked, shelter the traveler, free the prisoners, treat the sick, bury the dead’.

In 538 BC, during the taking of Babylon, King Cyrus of Persia made a
firm order to his army regarding respect for sanctity of shrines and the
humane treatment of defeated people.

In a treatise called “The Arts of the War”, written in 500 BC, the
Chinese writer Sun Tzu, expressed the idea that wars must be limited to
military necessity, and that prisoners of war, the wounded, the sick, and
civilians should be spared.

When Alaric I took Rome in 410 BC, he spared churches and people
who took refuge in temples were also spared, they were not dragged out
nor taken into captivity.

In 333 BC, Alexander the Great ordered his army not to attack civilian
population of defeated nations and prohibited them from intentional
destruction of religious temples.

In the Indian subcontinent, in the Code of Manu written in 200 BC, it

declared that barbed or poisoned weapons were prohibited, that wounded
soldiers had to be cared for, and that surrendering combatants must be
spared.

9
 During the siege of Jerusalem in 70 BC, Titus the Roman commander
also ensured that his soldiers allowed the safety passage of children and
women.

The middle ages period was characterized by the notion of ‘just war’.
Religious doctrine of Christianity on just war has greatly influenced the
integration of humanitarian considerations in war with the idea of fighting a
just cause.

King Richard II of England in 1386 published the Ordinance for the

government of the Army which was meant for the domestic use of his
soldiers. The ordinance designated some acts as capital offenses such as
destruction of churches and burning of houses, violence against women
and unarmed cleric.

Some 1400 years back, Islamic norms of warfare have made a

significant contribution toward integrating humanity into warfare. Muslims
are commanded to feed a captured slave even though they personally
need the food for themselves. In the Holy Qur’an, Allah says: “And they
give food, in spite of their love for it, to the poor, the orphan and the
captive.” Thus, Islam encourages Muslims to feed prisoners of war and
give them good treatment.

It forbids Muslim army to kill children, women, monks, old people, sick
and the bearers of flags of truce and destroy houses, places of worship or
mutilate the vanquished nor poison wells, burn down trees or crops etc.

10
Doctors from the enemy side were allowed to visit and treat the wounded
victims and return back to their own camps.

During the Renaissance and Age of Reason or Enlightenment (16th to

18th Century), there was a humanitarian practice developed in Europe that
before the conduct of hostilities, warring parties met and decided on the
guidelines to be respected during the battle. These special agreements
could, for example, establish the observance of an armistice two days per
week, the obligation to collect the wounded, or a responsibility to release
prisoners at the end of the war. Although these agreements were
concluded on an ad hoc basis, and had a limited scope of application, such
precedents played a very significant role in the creation of IHL.

St. Augustine convinced the pacific early Christians to believe that it

is in consonance with Christian values to use restricted force in a just
cause. His doctrine helped the Christians in tackling cases of marauders
and justified the use of force in response to wide-range of aggressions. The
legacy left behind by Augustine influenced Christians to believe in just war
and the need to convert the whole world into Christianity in order to
establish peace and fighting would end. This belief led to the Holy Roman
Empire that lasted up to the signing of Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

The Battle of Solferino

Modern International Humanitarian Law traces its history at a small

village of Solferino in Lombardy, Northern Italy. A young Swiss
businessman named Henry Dunant (1828-1910) while journeying on a

11
business mission in Italy chanced to witness the pain and suffering of the
casualties and the wounded of a war being fought between Austrian and
Franco-Scandinavian armies at a nearby Solferino.

The horrors witnessed by Dunant after the Battle of Solferino on 24

June 1859 which left about 6,000 soldiers dead and 36,000 wounded
completely changed the course of his life. Immediately after that incident, he
wrote down his experiences in a book titled “A Memory of Solferino”.

In his book, Dunant not only described the battle, but tried to suggest
and publicize possible measures to improve the fate of war victims. He
presented three basic proposals designed to mitigate the suffering of the
victims of war. To this end, he proposed:

First, that voluntary societies be established in every country which, in

time of peace, would prepare themselves to serve as auxiliaries to the
military medical services. He added that trained volunteers be organized in
all countries for the purpose of helping to care for the wounded combatants
in time of war. Thus, the birth of the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement.

Second, that States adopt an international treaty guaranteeing legal

protection to military hospitals and medical personnel. This proposal gave
birth to the “First Geneva Convention” in 1864.

Third, that an international sign of identification and protection of

medical personnel and medical facilities be adopted.

12
 In 1863, an “International Standing Committee for Aid to Wounded
Soldiers” was organized and convened military and medical experts at a
conference in Geneva to examine the practicability and feasibility of the
proposals made by Dunant. The results of the meeting were encouraging,
and the members of the Committee persuaded the Swiss Federal Council
to convene a diplomatic conference, whose task would be to give a legal
form to Dunant’s proposals.

Thus, a diplomatic conference was held in 1864 in Geneva and the 12

states finally adopted the “Geneva Convention of 22nd August 1864 for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.” This is
an international treaty among nations to assure more humane care of the
wounded, the aim of which is to protect the wounded and give them
necessary material assistance.

Later, International Humanitarian Law has developed considerably: the

four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977
which contain more than 600 articles providing for the protection of persons
in various circumstances came into being.

For the first time, armed conflict became regulated by general written
law.

The Lieber Code

13
 The first document on laws and custom of war which was made as the
substantial basis of the proposed international convention on the laws of war
presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and stimulated the adoption
of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on land warfare is the Lieber
Code. Prepared by Francis Lieber, then a university professor with an
extensive knowledge on the customary law of warfare, the Lieber Code is
actually General Order NO. 100 issued by President Abraham Lincoln in the
course of the American Civil War in 1863. The said General Order, entitled
“Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field”,
represented the first attempt to codify the laws of war. It provided detailed
rules on the entire range of land warfare, from the conduct of war proper and
the treatment of civilian population to the treatment of specified categories of
persons such as prisoners of war, wounded and so forth.

The Lieber Code stated that the relevance of war is a lawful activity at
the time. Two basic rules of international humanitarian law, namely, the
protection of civilians and the decent treatment of prisoners of war are
upheld. Prisoners of war must be respectfully treated. Hospitals protected.
Abuses of occupying forces are clearly prohibited.

The Lieber Code was regarded at the time as generally reflecting

customary law although in places it particularly stressed the importance of
respecting humanitarian treatment which, in practice was not always
accorded.

However, the Code advanced the theory that war is legitimate only if it
is conducted in accordance with certain rules. Under the Code, the army was

14
entitled to do what it considered as necessary to effect the immediate
surrender of the enemy except that wanton acts of violence and cruelty to
civilians were prohibited.

The De Martens Preamble

The De Martens Preamble provides that “the human person shall

remain to be under the protection of the principles of humanity and the
dictates of public conscience.” The full provision follows:

Until a more complete code of the laws can be drawn up,

the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in
cases not covered by the rules adopted by them, the inhabitants
and the belligerents remain under the protection and governance
of the principles of the law of nations, derived from the usages
established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity,
from the dictates of the public conscience. . .

This preamble was authored by a Russian jurist named Fyodorovich

de Martens during the 1907 Second Hague Peace Conference. The clauses
in the De Martens Preamble were incorporated in various treaties such as
the Hague Conventions No. II (1899) and No. 4 (1907) and in the 1980 UN
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain
Conventional Weapons, in certain provisions common to the 4 Geneva
Conventions, in Article 1 (2) of Protocol I and in paragraph 4 of Protocol II’s
Preamble.

15
 Under the Preamble, if a case was not covered by a law then in force
either because of a gap in the law or because the parties did not consider
themselves bound by the law, this would not mean that parties could employ
any means to subject the enemy.

NATURE AND SCOPE of IHL

The Four (4) Geneva Conventions

The four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the three (3)
Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 are the
seven (7) basic international agreements that comprised the International
Humanitarian Law.

The four conventions are: (1) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration
of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, of
August 12, 1949; (2) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Sea, of August 12, 1949; (3) Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War, of August 12, 1949; and (4) Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August 12,
1949.

These Four Geneva Conventions were conceived, born and reared

because of the “tremendous suffering and devastation during World War II

16
which gave more impetus to efforts to adopt more treaties and conventions
to regulate the conduct of warfare and to deal with situations not provided for
in the previous laws.”

The First Geneva Convention mandated that wounded or sick – and

therefore defenseless – combatants shall be respected and cared for,
whatever their nationality; personnel attending them, the buildings in which
they shelter and the equipment used for their benefit, shall be protected; a
red cross on a white ground shall be the emblem of this immunity.

The Second Geneva Convention, otherwise known as the Maritime

Convention, is an extension of the first Convention (Wounded and Sick), the
terms of which apply to maritime warfare. It covers the same field and
protects the same categories of persons as the First Convention.

The Third Convention provides for the humanitarian treatment of

prisoners of war as the civilized world finally accepted the principle that the
prisoner of war is not a criminal, but merely an enemy no longer able to bear
arms, who should be liberated at the close of hostilities, and be respected
and humanely treated while in captivity.

The Fourth Convention forms an important contribution to written

International Law in the humanitarian domain. This Convention while
introduces nothing new in a field where the doctrine is sufficiently well
established aims at ensuring that, even in the midst of hostilities, the dignity
of a human person shall be respected.

17
 It prohibits in particular: (1) violence to life and person, in particular
torture, mutilations or cruel treatment; (2) the taking of hostages; (3)
deportations; (4) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or
degrading treatment, or adverse treatment founded on differences of race,
colour, nationality, religion, beliefs, sex, birth or social status; and (5) the
passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial
guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions

The four (4) Conventions contain a common provision called Common

Article 3. It is the only article especially written for non-international armed
conflicts. Described either as a “mini-convention” or as a “convention within
the conventions”, it provides rules which parties to an internal armed conflict
are bound to apply, as a minimum.” It contains a list of absolute prohibitions,
such as violence to life and person, outrages upon personal dignity, the
taking of hostages and the passing of sentences which have not been
pronounced by regularly constituted courts.

Armed opposition groups in a State are not parties to the Conventions.

They may use this as an argument to deny any obligation to apply the article.
Moreover, government often do not wish to recognize insurgents as an
official “party to the conflict”, or even as a separate entity. Thus, they avoid
making any statement officially acknowledging that Article 3 is applicable, for
fear that insurgents might use this as an argument that the governments are
recognizing them as an adverse party.

18
 However, Article 3 (4) stipulates that application of its provisions shall
not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. But the insurgents
may always claim that under Common Article 3, their political status might
be different as the governments might have perceived.

Protocol I, Protocol II and Protocol III

The Geneva Conventions were agreed and ratified by nations

purposely to “humanize” the conduct of wars similar with the wars of World
War II. But with the advent of new technological devastating weapons and
“a change in the political face of war, which took on the ideological
complexion of colonialism and racism, leading to the potentially troublesome
concept of ‘wars of national liberation’, there was a need to update the law
pertaining to the victims of armed conflict, and to make the law relevant to
contemporary forms of armed conflict.”

Thus, the birth of the Two (2) Protocols Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949. The Protocols have two components: (1)
Protocol I or that Relating to the Protection of the Victims of International
Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977; and (2) Protocol II or that Relating to the
Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977.

Protocol I applies in situations of international armed conflicts which

include wars of national liberation defined as armed conflicts in which
peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and
against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as

19
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations.

Protocol II constitutes the foundation of respect for the human person

in cases of armed conflict not of an international character. Its purpose is to
ensure a better protection for the victims of internal armed conflicts.
These victims are, in large measure, the civilians not participating in the
hostilities. It applies to all internal armed conflicts taking place in the territory
of state party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other
organized groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control
over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and
concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

Protocol II does not apply to international armed conflicts including

wars of national liberation. Nor does it apply to situations of internal
disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of
violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed conflicts.

Protocol III is about the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.

It appears that this protocol is applicable to both the International
Humanitarian Law of International Armed Conflicts (IHL-IAC) and
International Humanitarian Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts (IHL-
NIAC.)

Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property

20
 Article 19 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in
the Event of Armed Conflict provides that:

Section 1. In the event of an armed conflict not of an

international character occurring within the territory of one of the
High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be
bound to apply, as a minimum, the provisions of the present
Convention which relate to respect for cultural property.

Section 2. The parties to the conflict shall endeavor to bring

into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the
other provisions of the present Convention.

Section 3. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization may offer its services to the parties to the
conflict.

Section 4. The application of the preceding provisions shall

not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.

The Law of International Armed Conflicts

The Law of International Armed Conflicts is based mainly on Protocol

1. This applies to international armed conflicts between and among
sovereign states.

21
 The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts

The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts is codified mainly in

Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II and
Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property.

Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions states that:

Article 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an

international character occurring in the territory of one of the High
Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to
apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(a) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,

including members of armed forces who have laid down their
arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds,
detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be
treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on
race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other
similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain

prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect
to the above-mentioned persons:

22
 (i) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(ii) taking of hostages;

(iii) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular

humiliating and degrading treatment;

(iv) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of

executions without previous judgment pronounced
by a regularly constituted court, affording all the
judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples.

(b) The wounded and sick shall be collected and

cared for.

(b) An impartial humanitarian body, such as

the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its
services to the Parties to the conflict.

The parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring

into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the
provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect

the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

23
 The above provision appears in all four (4) Conventions.1 In all the
provisions of the Conventions, Article 3, the only article written for non-
international armed conflict, is applicable in all conflicts not of an international
character. These include not only conflicts which see the government
opposed to an armed opposition group but also conflicts between two armed
opposition groups to which the government is not a party.2

On the other hand, Protocol II3 applies to all armed conflicts which are
not covered by Protocol I, thus:

This Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3

common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
without modifying its existing conditions or application, shall
apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of
the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory
of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and
dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which,
under responsible command, exercise such control over a part

1 The four (4) Conventions were signed by 57 States and 17 Delegations during the Diplomatic Conference
for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War convened by the
Swiss Federal Council in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August 1949. Fourty-four (44) other States had signed
when the agreed six-month period expired on 12 February 1950.
2 Kalshoven and Zegbeld, supra, 69.

24
 of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and
concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.4

This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal

disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic
acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being
armed conflicts.5

This Protocol shall be applied without any adverse

distinction founded on race, colour, sex, language, religion or
belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth,
birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria (hereinafter
referred to as adverse distinction) to all persons affected by an
armed conflict as defined in Article 1.6

4 Article 1, Section 1, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to
the Protection of Victims of Non-International Conflicts (Protocol II), of 8 June 1977.

5 Article I, Section 2, supra.

6 Article 2, Section 1, supra.

25
26