At the time of writing, the situation in Iraq is
one of great uncertainty. Sporadic fighting is continuing. The Iraqi
government and governmental agencies have collapsed, looting and violence
has been widespread, and in some areas people have been forcibly
displaced, further adding to the hardship of the Iraqi population. The
forces of the United States of America (USA) and United Kingdom (UK) have
yet to restore order and ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance
in the areas they control. Beyond these immediate concerns, the duration
of the military presence of the USA and UK is unknown, and prospects for
an effective Iraqi transitional authority are unclear.
Despite appearances, the present situation is not a "legal vacuum". The
forces of the USA and UK, as occupying powers under international law,
have clear obligations to protect the Iraqi population. These obligations
derive from international humanitarian law, which has long defined the
rules on belligerent occupation, complemented by human rights law, which
binds any state exercising jurisdiction or control over a territory. The
USA and UK must fulfil their obligations and continue to do so for as long
as they exercise military authority over Iraq.
By definition, however, the authority of the occupying powers is
transitional and limited to providing protection and assistance to the
occupied population in the emergency created by war. The USA and UK
cannot, for example, change the legal system or introduce the radical
reforms in the Iraqi criminal justice system that are needed to ensure
respect for human rights. Only a newly established Iraqi government, or a
United Nations (UN) transitional administration set up by the Security
Council, would have such authority under international law.
At the moment, there is no clarity as to what arrangements will be in
place to establish a transitional or permanent governmental authority in
Iraq. There is disagreement over the role of the UN. Amnesty International
believes that ensuring full respect for human rights must be central to
any arrangements. In this regard the UN must play a leading role in at
least two respects, beyond the provision of humanitarian assistance.
First, the UN should deploy human rights monitors throughout Iraq as soon
as the security situation allows (see Amnesty International
,
Iraq: The need to deploy human rights monitors,
MDE 14/012/2003, March 2003).
Second, the UN should establish a commission of experts to develop, in
close consultation with Iraqi civil society, proposals for a comprehensive
program to ensure justice for past and recent human rights abuses, centred
on the need to reform the Iraqi criminal justice system (see Amnesty
International,
Iraq: Ensuring justice for human rights abuses,
MDE 14/080/2003, April 2003).
In this paper, Amnesty International focuses on the responsibilities of
the USA and the UK as occupying powers to protect the fundamental rights
of the Iraqi population. The paper outlines the international legal
framework and sets out in some detail those obligations that appear most
relevant to protect the rights of Iraqis. Specific recommendations are
addressed to the USA and the UK.
The most immediate challenge in Iraq is still to ensure respect for the
laws of war by all parties in the conduct of hostilities. The broader task
is to secure order and ensure that occupying powers and any interim
authority respect their obligations to all of the people of Iraq. The most
difficult challenge, however, lies ahead: to ensure that in the
post-conflict period human rights stand at the centre of reconstruction
efforts. In this regard, addressing impunity for past violations, building
a fair and effective justice system, ensuring respect for the rights of
all without discrimination in the grounds of religion, ethnicity or
gender, and insisting that the Iraqi people themselves drive the process
forward, will be of central importance.
I. THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Over the years international law has developed a framework which, while
assigning to the occupying power the authority it needs to administer the
territory it controls, at the same time codifies the rights of the
occupied territory's inhabitants. One key aim of the international rules
on belligerent occupation is to enable the inhabitants of an occupied
territory to pursue as "normal" a way of life as possible in such
circumstances.
To this effect, and recognizing the transitional nature of the occupation,
the occupying power is required to administer the territory as far as
possible without making far-reaching changes to the existing order, while
at the same time ensuring the protection of the fundamental rights of the
inhabitants.
International law on belligerent occupation does not address the question
of the legality of occupation. Its rules apply to any occupying power for
the sole fact that it is in control of a foreign territory, whatever the
reason for this situation. Recognizing the applicability of such a law to
a given situation does not constitute a judgment on the legal status of
the territory concerned.
The provisions of the law on belligerent occupation are found in
international humanitarian law, also known as the laws of war or the laws
on armed conflict. As such, they take into account the military and
security concerns of the occupying power, balancing them against the
rights of those who find themselves under its authority. The sources for
the obligations under international humanitarian law applicable to
belligerent occupation are found in:
- The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
Land (Hague Convention) and its annexed Regulations respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land (Hague Regulations) of 18 October 1907;
- The Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) of 12 August 1949;
- Article 75 of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
- Rules of customary international law.
In fact, most of the basic rules on occupation are of a customary law
character, and are universally binding. None allow for any derogation.
A key provision of international humanitarian law which outlines the
obligations to respect the fundamental rights of those under occupation,
such as the right to humane treatment and non-discrimination, is Article
27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
"Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect
for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious
convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall
at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially
against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults
and public curiosity.
Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour,
in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of
indecent assault.
Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health,
age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same
consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are,
without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race,
religion or political opinion.
However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control
and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a
result of the war."
The authoritative commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention published
by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) points out (pages
200-201) that this article "proclaims the principle of respect for the
human person and the inviolable character of the basic rights of
individual men and women." It continues:
"The right of respect for the person must be understood in its
widest sense: it covers all the rights of the individual, that is, the
rights and qualities which are inseparable from the human being by the
very fact of his existence and his mental and physical powers; it
includes, in particular, the right to physical, moral and intellectual
integrity - an essential attribute of the human person."
At the domestic level, the provisions of international humanitarian law
have been translated into instructions for members of national armed
forces in military manuals. They include manuals for the armed forces of
the UK (The Law of War on Land, Part III, 1958) and the USA (The Law of
Land Warfare, FM 27-10, Department of the Army Field Manual, 1956).
In line with international humanitarian law, any occupying power is also
under the obligation to respect the provisions of the human rights
treaties to which the country whose territory is partially or totally
occupied is a party, especially when, as in the case of Iraq, such
treaties are formally incorporated in the occupied country's legal system.
The Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has also
affirmed in 1997 that the "rights enshrined in the Covenant belong to the
people living in the territory of the State party" (General Comment No.
26, Continuity of obligations, para 4).
Further, the Human Rights Committee, and other bodies monitoring the
implementation by states of their human rights obligations under the
treaties they have ratified, have consistently stressed that such
obligations extend to any territory in which a state exercises
jurisdiction or control, including territories occupied as a result of
military action. In administering Iraq, the USA and UK must therefore
respect their own international human rights obligations in addition to
those under international humanitarian law.
International human rights law complements provisions of international
humanitarian law, for example by providing content and standards of
interpretation, such as on the use of force to respond to disorders
outside combat situations. In some respects, for example the safeguards
applicable to anyone held in detention, human rights standards offer
greater protection than provisions of international humanitarian law and
should be applied. The result is a protection framework firmly embedded in
international obligations.
II. GENERAL ASPECTS OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION
The definition of belligerent occupation is given in Article 42 of the
Hague Regulations:
The US manual FM 27-10 (para 351) simply refers to that definition. The
UK manual (para 503) follows the same line by underscoring that invading
forces must have taken the place of the national authorities in the
exercise of actual control over a territory.
The sole criterion for deciding the applicability of the law on
belligerent occupation is drawn from facts: the de facto effective
control of territory by foreign armed forces coupled with the possibility
to enforce their decisions, and the de facto absence of a national
governmental authority in effective control. If these conditions are met
for a given area, the law on belligerent occupation applies. Even though
the objective of the military campaign may not be to control territory,
the sole presence of such forces in a controlling position renders
applicable the law protecting the inhabitants. The occupying power cannot
avoid its responsibilities as long as a national government is not in a
position to carry out its normal tasks.
The international legal regime on belligerent occupation takes effect as
soon as the armed forces of a foreign power have secured effective control
over a territory that is not its own. It ends when the occupying forces
have relinquished their control over that territory.
The question may arise whether the law on occupation still applies if new
civilian authorities set up by the occupying power from among nationals of
the occupied territories are running the occupied territory's daily
affairs. The answer is affirmative, as long as the occupying forces are
still present in that territory and exercise final control over the acts
of the local authorities.
The responsibility of the occupying power does not mean responsibility for
each and every act of the local civilian administration. But if the local
administration lacks, for example, the means to provide adequate health
care, it is the duty of the occupying power to take remedial action. It
cannot relinquish its basic responsibility for the well-being of the
territory's inhabitants by claiming that local authorities are in charge.
In the language of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 4), civilians in
occupied territories who find themselves "in the hands of a Party to the
conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals" are the
"protected persons" whose rights are included in the Convention. Their
rights are inviolable and cannot be renounced (Article 8). Any such
renunciation would be null and void, irrespective of whether the person
has taken that decision of his or her own free will or under coercion by
the occupying power.
The core idea of international law on belligerent occupation is that
occupation is transitional. The occupying power assumes, for a limited
period, responsibility for the security and well-being of the occupied
territory's inhabitants. The Hague Regulations state in Article 43 that:
"The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into
the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in
his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country."
As a caretaker for the absent national government, the occupying power
has to take over responsibility for the functions which are directly
related to the administration of the territory. As such it may set up a
temporary civil administration, but has no right to change the existing
structures of the state. For example, it cannot engage in a major reform
of the criminal justice system, even though in Iraq this is badly needed
to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards.
Amnesty International is calling for a UN commission of experts to start
working immediately, in close consultation with Iraqi civil society, to
develop proposals for reform. These proposals will have to be implemented
either by a new Iraqi government or a UN transitional administration.
If several occupying powers allocate control and administration of
different parts of the territory to each one of them (as in occupied
Germany after 1945), each state is fully responsible for what happens
under its authority. However, one fundamental obligation of international
humanitarian law, reflected in Article 1 common to all four Geneva
Conventions, is the undertaking not only to respect but also to "ensure
respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." On this basis
the USA and UK, and all other parties to the Geneva Conventions, must take
measures towards each other should there be a need to prevent or redress
violations of international humanitarian law. They must also ensure that
any armed group allied to them respect fully international humanitarian
law.
III. OBLIGATIONS OF THE USA AND THE UK AS OCCUPYING POWERS
1. Duty to restore and maintain law and order
The occupying power has the duty to restore and maintain public order and
safety in the territories controlled by its forces, in accordance with
Article 43 of the Hague Regulations.
In order to carry out this duty, the occupying power is entitled to "take
such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as
may be necessary as a result of the war", in the language of Article 27 of
the Fourth Geneva Convention. Such measures may include the use of force.
However any use of force in circumstances outside combat, whether by
soldiers or police officers, must be consistent with international law
enforcement standards, including the 1979 UN Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials (Code of Conduct) and the 1990 UN Basic Principles
on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Basic
Principles).
Article 3 of the Code of Conduct reflects the principles of necessity and
proportionality: law enforcement officials "may use force only when
strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their
duty." The Commentary to this article specifies that the use of firearms
is an extreme measure:
Every effort should be made to exclude the use of firearms,
especially against children. In general, firearms should not be used
except when a suspected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise
jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not
sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender. In every
instance in which a firearm is discharged, a report should be made
promptly to the competent authorities."
According to the Basic Principles, law enforcement officials faced by
disorders, including violent assemblies,
"shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or
defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious
injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime
involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a
danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape,
and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these
objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only
be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."
Combat troops do not usually have the training or the proper equipment
for performing policing functions, and should not be expected to do so.
However, occupying powers have a duty to plan for the breakdown of law and
order in the areas where they establish military control, an all too
common occurrence in armed conflict and one repeatedly predicted in the
case of Iraq. Much planning and resources seem to have been devoted to
securing Iraqi oilfields. However, there is scarce evidence of similar
levels of planning and allocation of resources for securing public and
other institutions essential for the survival and well-being of the
population. The response to disorder has been shockingly inadequate.
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to deploy forces
in sufficient numbers and with the right training and equipment to restore
law and order, until Iraqi police forces can operate effectively. An
effective and fair vetting procedure for members of the Iraqi police
forces should be set up urgently, so as to reduce the chance of restoring
to their duties officials who may have been involved in human rights
violations. In exercising or supervising policing functions, the USA and
the UK must ensure that the rights of freedom of expression and assembly
are not arbitrarily restricted.
2. Duty to provide food, medical care and facilitate relief assistance
The occupying power has the obligation to ensure, if necessary, the
provision of food and medical supplies to the inhabitants of the occupied
territories. According to Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
"To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying
Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the
population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary
foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the
occupied territory are inadequate."
With regard to medical care, Article 56 says that the occupying power:
"has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of
national and local authorities, the medical and hospital
establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied
territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application
of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the
spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all
categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties."
More generally, under Article 59, "If the whole or part of the
population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the
Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said
population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal."
Such schemes may be undertaken by states or impartial humanitarian
organizations such as the ICRC and "shall especially consist of
foodstuffs, medical supplies and clothing." Every effort shall be made to
protect such consignments. However, relief consignments in no way relieve
the occupying powers of their responsibilities (Article 60).
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to intervene to
ensure the safe functioning of hospitals and other public services, as
well as the prompt delivery of food and water to those in need. Every
effort must be made to facilitate the work of international and other
humanitarian organizations, including by assisting them in getting
effective access to all those in need. In particular, the ICRC and the
Iraqi Red Crescent Society must be able to pursue their activities in
accordance with the principles of the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement.
3. Penal legislation: limited scope to introduce changes
In line with the transitional nature of belligerent occupation, Article 64
of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that the "penal laws of the
occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may
be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they
constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of
the present Convention."
The Commentary to this Article (pages 335-336) stresses that a basic
principle of the law of occupation is the "idea of continuity of the legal
system" of the occupied territories, which "applies to the whole of the
law (civil law and penal law)". It explains that the reason for the
express reference in the Fourth Geneva Convention "only to respect for
penal law was that it had not been sufficiently observed during past
conflicts; there is no reason to infer a contrario that the
occupation authorities are not also bound to respect the civil law of the
country, or even its constitution."
There are only two exceptions to the rule of preserving existing penal
laws. The first relates to the security of the occupying power, which, as
the ICRC Commentary explains, "must obviously be permitted to cancel
provisions such as those concerning recruiting or urging the population to
resist the enemy." The second "is in the interests of the population" and
makes it possible to abrogate, for example, discriminatory measures. The
occupying powers cannot abrogate or suspend the penal laws for any other
reason - and not, in particular, merely to make it accord with their own
legal conceptions."
Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits the death penalty to be
imposed for particularly serious offences, but not on people who were
under 18 years of age at the time of the offence. However, this provision
was adopted in 1949, when the death penalty was widely used. Today more
than 100 countries have abolished it in law or practice. The death penalty
is ruled out as a punishment in all international and mixed courts and
tribunals for the worst crimes in the world, such as genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity. It should not be used in Iraq.
In line with these provisions of international humanitarian law and with
their obligations under international human rights law, the USA and UK
should not observe provisions of Iraqi domestic law which are contrary to
international law. Amnesty International has long been concerned about
Iraqi legislation inconsistent with international law and standards, such
as numerous special decrees issued by the Revolutionary Command Council
providing for the death penalty and mutilations for a wide range of
offences (see Amnesty International, Iraq: Systematic torture of
political prisoners, MDE 14/008/2001, August 2001).
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to suspend the
application of Iraqi laws or decrees which contravene international law,
while respecting their restrictions regarding other legislative changes as
required by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Legislation prescribing corporal
punishments and the death penalty should be suspended pending its
abolition.
4. Limited legislative powers of the occupying power
An occupying power has a limited scope to enact its own legal provisions.
Article 64.2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that the occupying
power may "subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions
which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its
obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly
government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying
Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or
administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of
communication used by them."
The Commentary (page 337) sets out the matters in which an occupying power
may exercise legislative power. They are limited to provisions "required
for the application of the Convention" in areas such as child welfare,
labour, food, hygiene and public health; other provisions necessary to
maintain the "orderly government of the territory"; and penal provisions
"for its own protection."
Under Article 65, any "penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power
shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to
the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effect of
these penal provisions shall not be retroactive."
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to limit their
exercise of any legislative powers to the scope provided for by the Fourth
Geneva Convention. All efforts must be made to properly inform the public
of any laws or regulations enacted in this respect. In terms of the
broader task of reforming the legal system, a UN commission of experts
should be established to develop proposals for implementation by whatever
authority replaces the USA and the UK in Iraq.
5. Criminal jurisdiction
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the status of judges, like that of
public officials, may not be altered by occupying powers (Article 54).
Existing tribunals shall continue to function, retaining their
jurisdiction over offences of domestic criminal law by inhabitants of the
occupied territory (Article 64.1). However, in the absence of a
functioning judicial system, the occupying power may establish its own
courts to perform the functions of the ordinary judiciary, provided they
apply existing laws.
Article 66 provides that in case an occupying power enacts legislative
provisions, it may also establish its own "properly constituted,
non-political military courts", which shall sit in the occupied
territories, while courts of appeal shall "preferably sit in the
territories." (Article 66).
Military courts set up by the occupying power must respect detailed
procedural guarantees laid down in Articles 67 and 69 to 75. Moreover,
under the heading fundamental guarantees, Article 75 (1) of
Protocol I has codified all the guarantees of fair trial. The content of
Article 75 is recognized, including by the USA, which has not ratified
Protocol I, as reflecting customary international law. These guarantees
are likewise the essence of modern international human rights law, as
codified in Article 14 of the ICCPR and other international standards.
The Fourth Geneva Convention affirms the principle of individual criminal
responsibility, and prohibits collective penalties (Article 33).
Persons accused or convicted of a criminal offence must be detained in
humane conditions and kept in detention facilities within the occupied
territory (Article 76). They have the right to receive visits by the
delegates of the ICRC.
Amnesty International has long been concerned at the operation of the
Iraqi criminal justice system, including the lack of independence of
judges; the use of torture; and grossly unfair trials by Iraqi special and
other courts. However, Amnesty International believes that tribunals
established by the USA and the UK would be undesirable, since they risk
being perceived as "victors' justice". Amnesty International believes that
military courts should not be used to try civilians or to try members of
armed forces for crimes under international law. In addition, certain
proposals such as the use of US military commissions, which are not even
courts, would be grossly unfair under international law.
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to suspend the
operations of special Iraqi tribunals which have been operating in
violation of international human rights law and standards. It also calls
on the USA and the UK to ensure that ordinary Iraqi courts do not violate
international law and standards. The USA and the UK should not establish
their own tribunals. They
should allow a UN commission of experts to develop proposals at the
earliest possible date, in close consultation with Iraqi civil society,
for transitional tribunals and other judicial approaches, pending the
reform of the Iraqi criminal justice system.
6. Assigned residence or administrative detention (internment)
According to Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, if the occupying
power "considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take
safety measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject
them to assigned residence or to internment." However, in such cases
Article 78 requires that:
"Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be
made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the
Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present
Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal for the
parties concerned. Appeals shall be decided with the least possible
delay. In the event of the decision being upheld, it shall be subject
to periodical review, if possible every six months, by a competent
body set up by the said Power."
Administrative detainees have the right to receive visits by the
delegates of the ICRC.
Amnesty International recognizes that temporary restrictive measures
such as those allowed by the Fourth Geneva Convention may be necessary,
especially in response to widespread disorders. However, it calls on the
USA and the UK to hold any detained civilians for the shortest possible
time and release them unless they are to be charged with a recognizably
criminal offence and brought to trial.
Amnesty International believes that judicial review of temporary
detention should be on a frequent, individualized basis. All detainees
must have the ability to seek judicial - not just administrative - review
at any time of the legality of their detention and to be released if the
detention is unlawful, as guaranteed by Article 9 (4) of the ICCPR.
7. Prohibition of coercion, torture and other forms of brutality
"No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected
persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third
parties" (Article 31).
Also prohibited is "any measure of such a character as to cause the
physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands.
This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal
punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not
necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to
any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military
agents" (Article 32).
Amnesty International calls on the USA and UK to ensure that
civilians are protected against any coercion, torture or other forms of
brutality.
8. Prohibition of deportation and transfer
Protected persons, whether detained, serving a prison sentence, or not in
custody, should not be forcibly removed from occupied territories.
According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of
protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the
Occupying Power or to
that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless
of their
motive."
Article 49.2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also prohibits forcible
transfers of the civilian population within the occupied territory unless
"the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand".
According to recent reports, supporters of the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party, groups operating in close
cooperation with US forces, have forcibly displaced Arabs from their
homes. The USA and UK, as occupying powers, have the obligation to ensure
that any forcible displacement happens only in the narrowly circumscribed
circumstances permitted under Article 49.
Amnesty International calls on the USA and UK not to remove any
Iraqi civilians from occupied territories and take them to their own
territories or to those of other countries, regardless of the reason. In
particular, the USA must not transfer any protected person to Guantanamo
Bay, and the UK should not hand over any protected person to the USA
without guarantees that their rights under occupation law will be fully
respected. The USA and UK must also ensure that allied armed groups
respect the rules of international humanitarian law in these and all other
circumstances.
9. Protection of property and natural resources
The Hague Regulations require the USA and UK to respect "private property"
(Article 46). They "shall be regarded only as administrator[s]" of
publicly owned buildings and of natural resources such "forests, and
agricultural estates" (Article 55). As such, the USA and the UK must not
appropriate or otherwise dispose of public property or of the natural
resources of Iraq.
The "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by
military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly", is a war
crime, specifically a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention
(Article 147).
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to safeguard the
property of protected persons. As caretakers of Iraqi public property and
natural resources, they must not appropriate them or otherwise dispose of
them.
10. Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross
A fundamental safeguard for the protection of civilians in occupied
territory is constituted by the work of the ICRC. Under the Fourth Geneva
Convention the occupying powers must accept the services of the ICRC
(Article 143.5). Its delegates have the right to take up any matter
relating to the law of occupation. They must be granted free movement
throughout the entire occupied territory. In particular, they must be
given free access to all detention facilities and to all categories of
detainees.
Amnesty International calls on the USA and the UK to fully cooperate
with the ICRC so that it can fully exercise its mandate in Iraq.
********
AI INDEX: MDE 14/089/2003 16 April 2003
Amnesty International, International
Secretariat, 1 Easton Street, WC1X 0DW, London, United Kingdom
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that
we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me
to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture?
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead
of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really
are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Queen
Victoria
