ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
  • Print page
Commentary - Art. 143. Part IV : Execution of the convention #Section I : General provisions


    The Diplomatic Conference of 1929 was the first to recognize that the co-operation of the Protecting Powers helped to guarantee the application of the provisions of the Conventions. Article 26 of the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War embodies this principle, together with clauses to ensure its practical application: collaboration between the Protecting Powers was to be ensured through their representatives and recognized delegates, who were to have access to all premises occupied by prisoners and might hold conversation with them without witnesses.
    These provisions proved so useful during the Second World War and fulfilled so obvious a need that they were accepted without discussion of substance by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949, which strengthened and extended them. Their incorporation in the four Conventions, accepted unanimously by the Conference, made it necessary, however, to modify their form. The statement of the principle itself ("The present Convention shall be applied with the co-operation and under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers") was placed among the provisions common to all four Conventions because of its altogether general character. It is contained in Article 8/8/8/9 (1). On the other hand, the clauses of application -- i.e. the statement of the best methods of carrying out supervision -- could not be common to the four Conventions. Since these methods consist mainly of visits to prisoners of war and protected persons and the inspection of their places of detention and internment, they could only be included in the Conventions which govern the
    conditions of detention and internment, i.e. the Third and Fourth Conventions. [p.568] They were quite naturally placed, therefore, in the chapters concerning execution of the Conventions and are the subject of Article 143 of the Fourth Convention and Article 126 of the Third.
    Their separation from the statement of principle is, however, purely formal and the causal links between them remain. Article 143 therefore should be read in conjunction with Article 9 , of which it is the logical extension.
    It should, however, be emphasized here that visits to protected persons are not the only method of supervising in practice the application of the principle mentioned in Article 9 . Of course, the inspection of places of detention and internment and interviews with protected persons are the best means available to the Protecting Powers for really effective supervision, but it would be illogical to restrict to those activities alone the obligation laid on those Powers to assist in the application of the Convention and subject it to scrutiny, as must be done everywhere where it is applicable. Thus, the Protecting Power in carrying out each of its tasks under the Convention will, in so far as it is itself a party to the Convention, be under the additional obligation of exercising a degree of supervision based not on the mandate it has received from the Power of origin, but on a higher mandate given to Protecting Powers in general by the whole of the States party to the Convention. Furthermore, a number of provisions in the Convention provide
    explicitly for supervision, by the Protecting Power, and the reader is referred to the commentary on those provisions (2).
    Nevertheless, in the case of civilian internees and detainees, the Convention will find application mainly in places of internment and detention. It is therefore essentially by visits to those places that the Protecting Power will be able to fulfil its general task most effectively. It is for that reason that Article 143 has received the title "Supervision", although, it should be emphasized, the actual principle of supervision by the Protecting Power of the application of the Convention must be sought in Article 9 (3).
    Article 143 also contains a new feature, important for giving effect to that principle, which it extends and strengthens. The International Committee of the Red Cross will now take part in the [p.569] system of supervision and the presence and activities of its delegates side by side with those of the Protecting Power is hereby sanctioned.
    It should be emphasized here that the International Committee of the Red Cross does not, in fact, exercise and has never exercised real supervision in the legal sense of the term. The humanitarian purposes for which it exists have led it to make every effort to ensure that the victims of war are treated humanely and without unnecessary harshness. Acting in the first place on a purely empirical basis, it later successfully urged the drafting of legal rules binding on States in this matter. These rules, contained in the Geneva Conventions, represent general standards of humane conduct. However, the way in which individuals are in fact treated is of even greater interest to the Committee than the strict application of rules of law. For that reason its activities in behalf of the victims of war go in some ways far beyond the actual supervision of the application of the Conventions which apply to them. Those activities, which can be termed "factual supervision", are carried out on the Committee's own initiative and in the name of the
    inalienable rights of the human individual.
    The 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, in assigning duties to the Protecting Powers, also sanctioned the by then traditional right of the International Committee to take the initiative. This enabled the Committee from 1939 onwards to renew and extend the factual supervision it had carried out so successfully during the First World War. It did not take the place of supervision by the Protecting Powers but merely supplemented it, and it led to numerous improvements being made in the conditions of prisoners of war and civilian internees during the Second World War. It is almost beyond doubt that the 1929 Convention would not have been applied as it was and that many infringements of it would have occurred if the Protecting Powers had not conscientiously visited the camps from the very beginning and if the International Committee had not once more sent delegates to almost all the belligerents.
    This factual supervision was not given full legal sanction by the Diplomatic Conference and no request had been made for such sanction. The International Committee, a private body with strictly humanitarian ends, will doubtless not always be suitable or even equipped for exercising in every case complete supervision of the application of the Conventions. Such supervision would go beyond its competence and the tasks assigned to it by the Conventions themselves. The Committee might jeopardize its reputation for independence and neutrality by carrying out tasks which are in fact of a somewhat [p.570] political nature and thus fall within the purview of the Protecting Power. On the other hand, factual supervision is implied in Article 9/9/9/10 common to the four Conventions, concerning the International Committee's right of initiative, an Article which reproduces Article 88 of the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention. Finally, it is almost explicitly recognized in the last paragraph of Article 143: "The delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross shall also enjoy the above prerogatives". Stated in this form, at once more flexible and less official, supervision is left to the Committee's initiative and may be carried out freely according to circumstances and the conditions ruling at the time.
    As has been said, Article 143 lays down the principal method of exercising the supervision mentioned in Article 9 : visits to camps and all places where protected persons are held. These visits call for a few general comments.
    The inspection of places where prisoners of war are detained, at the same time as the distribution of relief, is one of the activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross has undertaken from the very beginning of its existence. It was as long ago as 1864, during the Prusso-Danish war, that the first delegates of the Committee made their first visits to camps. Subsequently, such visits became one of the essential tasks that the Committee carried out during each conflict and which, until the First World War, it was often alone in performing. These activities were given legal sanction in the Hague Regulations of 1899 which authorize relief societies to visit the places of internment of prisoners. It was during the First World War that the representatives of the Protecting Powers, given a mandate to that effect by the Powers of origin of the prisoners, were also authorized to inspect camps and that authorization was confirmed by Article 86 of the 1929 Convention. Article 88 of the same Convention confirmed the right of the International
    Committee to continue without hindrance the humanitarian work it might perform for the protection of prisoners of war. The camps of civilian internees (4), who were given the benefit by analogy of the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, were also visited in most cases, both by the Protecting Powers and by the International Committee.
    Carried out in parallel and often by, very similar methods, these visits, far from duplicating each other, were complementary. In the use made of the findings, however, appreciable differences very [p.571] often appeared. The Protecting Powers acted under a mandate given by the Powers of origin and the reports which their delegates drew up after their visits to a camp were communicated only to those Powers. It was for the Powers of origin, on reading the reports, to ask the Protecting Power to request the enemy to cease any malpractice which had been discovered. Supervision by the Protecting Powers was exercised only on behalf of the Powers which had appointed them its agents. The position of the International Committee was different. Its camp visits applied to all the occupants without regard to nationality, solely on the basis of the fact that they were prisoners or internees. The Committee carried out these inspections, not on behalf of a particular Power, but in the name of humanity and with a view to putting a stop, as far as possible, to any
    abuses reported by its delegates. Thus the reports made by the delegates after each of their visits were immediately transmitted to the Power responsible for the place of detention visited, with comments drawing attention to shortcomings noted and urging remedial action. Moreover, the International Committee was the only institution able to visit in the same way and at the same time prisoner-of-war and internee camps in almost all the belligerent countries (5), while often a Protecting Power visited the prisoners and internees of only one nationality and in one country. The Committee thus obtained very complete and precise information which enabled it to compare the situation of those detained in the various camps and to bring forward supporting evidence in favour of claims for reciprocal treatment.
    Under Articles 9 and 143 of the Fourth Convention, the special position of the International Committee will be shared henceforth, in part, by the Protecting Powers, since in future they will carry out supervision not only on behalf of the country for which they are acting, but on behalf of all the States parties t0 the Convention. They will therefore be able henceforth to make direct to the Detaining Powers any criticism they consider called for; they will intervene on their own initiative, thus assuming an active instead of a passive rĂ´le.
    The part played by the International Committee remains unchanged and is merely confirmed by these provisions. The Committee, however, will retain the advantage over the Protecting Powers of being able to go to some degree automatically into all camps and places of detention, whatever the nationality of the [p.572] inmates and in the national or occupied territories of all the belligerents.
    To close this study, it should be said that Article 143 is one of the series of provisions in the Convention -- and one of the most important -- whose application in occupied territory is linked to the duration of occupation as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 6 . In general, and in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 6 , Article 143 will remain in force after the end of a conflict, so long as there remain protected persons who have not been released or repatriated. The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross will therefore continue to visit them and to supervise the application of those provisions of the Conventions which concern them. Thus their activities and their responsibilities may continue in certain circumstances long after the end of a conflict.


    The Article begins with a general rule: all places without exception where protected persons are shall be open to inspection.
    The rule repeats exactly the opening paragraph of the corresponding Article 126 of the Third Convention. Both Articles are based on the second paragraph of Article 86 of the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, from which they differ in only one particular, the fact that some examples are given of the places to be inspected.
    The inspectors will be representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers and also, under the terms of the last paragraph, of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The fact that the whole Article speaks of Protecting Powers and only at the end mentions that the International Committee's delegates will enjoy the same prerogatives does not give the representatives of the Protecting Power any priority. All are placed on the same footing.
    The distinction made here between representatives and delegates of the Protecting Powers is explained in Article 9 . The representatives will be members of the diplomatic or consular staff of those Powers serving in the country at the commencement of hostilities or sent there later. They will need, in order to carry out the tasks entrusted to them by their Government in fulfilment of its protective mission, no approval other than that given to them when they enter upon their diplomatic or consular duties in the country. The delegates will be persons recruited by the Protecting Power sometimes in the country itself, outside the diplomatic corps and among its own nationals or even nationals of another neutral country. Those [p.573] delegates, as stated in Article 9 , will be subject to the approval of the Power with which they are to carry out their duties, as will the delegates of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    The persons who are to inspect places of internment and other places must be carefully selected. The task is not easy; it requires wide general knowledge, experience, tact and a great deal of discretion. Among the essential items of knowledge, naturally, will be a knowledge of the Convention whose application is to be supervised and of the laws, decrees, etc., issued by the Detaining Power and applicable to the protected persons. Generally speaking, the choice will readily fall on a doctor, because of his special knowledge and since a doctor alone, in very many cases, is capable of discerning deficiencies not obvious to the layman. At the very least, a doctor will be attached to a delegation, if it consists of several inspectors, or will make his visits of inspection alternately with another representative. Furthermore, these inspectors will need to have a good knowledge of the language of the detaining country, and above all the language of the protected persons they will visit. Of course, the next paragraph allows for recourse to an
    interpreter; but this is a step which should only be taken in exceptional cases, since it is only by expressing direct in their own language and without witnesses what they wish to say that protected persons will be able to make their needs known clearly and freely.
    It is not to be expected that camp inspectors should have constantly in their minds a complete list of the many obligations laid on the Detaining Power with regard to protected persons. A method is therefore recommended to which several Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross resorted during the Second World War, i.e. the drafting of a handbook for their delegates. This document listed the various tasks of a delegate, informed him of his rights and duties and, in a chapter devoted to camp visits, gave a complete list in a rational order of the various items which must be looked into and the questions to which a reply must be given (6). A specimen report on a camp visit was attached. These handbooks were of great service and enabled delegates to make thorough and complete inspections in the shortest possible time.
    The words "shall have permission" indicate that the inspectors must request permission to visit the place of detention or internment they have chosen, and that their request must be granted. Only imperative military necessity would allow of such permission being [p.574] postponed (but never refused) as will be seen in connection wit paragraph 3.
    The Detaining Powers are therefore obliged to grant permission They are also obliged to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the inspection of places of internment or detention under the term of paragraph 2 of Article 9 . If need be, they will arrange for the transport of delegates, give them the necessary visas and passes, furnish guides, an escort, interpreters, etc.
    No restriction is imposed in regard to places open to inspection. The agents of the Protecting Powers and of the International Committee must be able to reach all protected persons, whether in groups or as isolated individuals, in the territory of the Detaining Power or in occupied territory.
    As has been said, this provision differs from the 1929 text in that it mentions three types of place open to inspection: places of internment, detention and work. This list, of course, does not add anything new to the rule formulated at the beginning of the paragraph and its presence here is not essential. It is, however, useful since it mentions expressly the three types of place in which the Convention will find its widest application, and where, as a result, wider supervision must be exercised. Furthermore, it is intended to prevent the Detaining Power restricting visits to the main camps only. In this respect, the places of internment -- i.e. in fact the civilian internee camps, which are the subject of 63 Articles of Section IV of Part III -- are of particular importance.
    Places of detention will include places where civilian internees are undergoing punishment and places where protected persons are detained who have not been interned. For this category the Articles whose application must be supervised will be mainly Article 37 , in the case of aliens in the territory of a Party to the conflict, and Articles 64 to 77 in the case of protected persons in occupied territory.
    Places of work will mean in most cases labour detachments from civilian internee camps, the operation and inspection of which are dealt with in Article 96 . They may, however, also be the places of work of persons who are not interned, regulated by Article 40 , in the case of aliens in a territory of a Party to the conflict and Articles 51 and 52 in the case of persons in occupied territory, whose application will have to be supervised.
    Of course, the three types of place mentioned are only examples given because of their importance for the supervision of the application of the Convention; that is confirmed by the word "particularly" which precedes them. They do not constitute a restrictive list. Incidentally, Article 126 , the corresponding provision of the Third Convention, [p.575] quotes a fourth example of places particularly subject to supervision: the places of departure, passage and arrival of prisoners who are being transferred. The clause was introduced into the Third Convention at the request of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which had noted how often transfers of prisoners were carried out in unsatisfactory conditions; but it was not considered necessary to repeat it here in respect of the transfer of civilian internees, doubtless for reasons of simplification. Of course, this omission does not mean that there should be no supervision of transfers of internees or that it should be any less strict.


    Like the previous paragraph, this one has its origin in Article 86 of the 1929 Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, reproduced in the Third Convention of 1949. It contains no changes.
    In all places where there are protected persons, all the premises which they use either permanently or temporarily will be visited: dormitories, canteens, sanitary installations, infirmaries, etc. The same will apply to premises not used directly by, the protected persons but devoted to their needs, such as warehouses and other storage places. Indeed, the delegates have the right to check on the food supply of interned and detained civilians and particularly the distribution of relief sent to them under the authority, of paragraph 3 of Article 109 .
    In the case of occupied countries this authorization is of a very general character and supervision will extend to the supply of foodstuffs and clothing for the whole population of such countries, by virtue of the last paragraph of Article 55 . The commentary on that Article emphasized the importance of such supervision and the wide proportions it may, assume. There is no need to repeat the comments here.
    Interviews without witnesses with prisoners of war were authorized for the first time by the 1929 Convention (Article 86 ) but in the form of a recommendation and "as a general rule" only. The restriction was abolished in 1949. The importance of such interviews for obtaining a knowledge of actual conditions needs no emphasis. It is a striking fact that during the First World War it was in the very countries where the application of the Convention left most to be desired that most obstacles were put in the way of interviews without witnesses with prisoners of war and civilian internees. In the very first revised drafts this provision was therefore given the character of an absolute [p.576] right conferred on the agents of the Protecting Powers and the Inter national Committee, and the Diplomatic Conference accepted it in its new form without any discussion in the case of both the Third and the Fourth Conventions. Henceforth, therefore, the authorities responsible for protected persons are obliged to allow inspecting delegates or representatives to interview
    any internee or detained person without witnesses and for the necessary length of time. The provision is addressed particularly to camp commandants, prison governors and certain military authorities in occupied countries who, in the past and often on their own initiative, have shown the greatest opposition to such interviews.
    It has already been stated how desirable it is that delegates should know the language of the protected persons they are visiting; recourse to interpreters, although authorized here, must therefore be avoided as much as possible. If it cannot be avoided, the Detaining Power must, on request, supply the delegates with the necessary interpreters. This service is, indeed, one of the facilities the Detaining Power is bound to give to delegates under paragraph 2 of Article 9 . It would be preferable, however, for the interpreters themselves to form part of the staff of the Protecting Power or of the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to avoid any suspicion of tendentious interpreting. It will also be possible to choose them from among the protected persons themselves.


    ' First sentence. -- Reasons of military necessity '

    This reservation, which did not form part of the corresponding text of 1929, was introduced in the drafts of the Third and Fourth Conventions by the International Committee of the Red Cross itself. The Committee considered, indeed, that it was impossible to increase the number and activities of the delegates of the Protecting Powers and the International Committee and to extend the scope of their work and their powers without giving the Detaining Powers the countervailing permission to restrict such activities temporarily if military necessity demanded it. Otherwise, those Powers would have been put in a position where, compelled as they sometimes would be to forbid or postpone such camp visits mainly in the areas near to the fighting lines and in occupied territories, they were faced with the alternative of violating the Conventions or harming their own interests. Here as elsewhere, if they are to be applicable, humanitarian principles must take into account actual facts. This clause was accepted without discussion by the 1949
    Diplomatic Conference. It [p.577] even strengthened it -- but only after long controversy -- by adding to the rule which states the general principle of supervision in the four Conventions (Article 8/8/8/9 ) a provision forbidding the delegates of Protecting Powers to exceed their terms of reference and instructing them to take into account the imperative security needs of the Detaining Power (7). Furthermore, it included in those Articles, in the First and Second Conventions (which do not provide for camp visits), a clause identical with the one under discussion.
    If they are to justify the prohibition of visits, military necessities must be imperative. Whether they are or not is a matter for the Detaining Power alone to decide and the right of supervision of the Protecting Powers is restricted by this exercise of sovereignty. However, such a decision must not be lightly taken, since the provision insists that the necessity must be obviously imperative, because the prohibition of visits based on it must be an exceptional measure.
    Furthermore, the prohibition will be temporary. The Protecting Powers and the International Committee will have the right to bring the temporary nature of the prohibition to the notice of the Detaining Power and, after a certain length of time, to request it to raise all restrictions. Moreover, the Protecting Power will be able to carry out supervision "a posteriori", by checking afterwards whether the prohibition of visits has been used by the Detaining Power to violate the Convention or if, on the contrary, the temporary prohibition has not been prejudicial to the protected persons. In any case, it is not in the interests of the Detaining Power to misuse this reservation, because it would very soon be suspected of deliberately wishing to violate the Convention by taking advantage of the absence of qualified witnesses.

    ' Second sentence. -- No restriction on visits '

    Once authorized in principle, visits to places where protected persons are must not be subjected to any hindrance. The frequency of visits, it is worth noting, is left to the discretion of the visitors. In general, experience shows that in regard to internment camps, two or three visits per year are a minimum; they must be more frequent if conditions have not been satisfactory, so that a closer check is needed. The same will apply to the duration of the visits which will depend on the circumstances ruling at the time.
    The corresponding provision of 1929 and the first revised drafts stipulated in addition that the civilian or military authorities of the places of internment must be informed of visits. The International [p.578] Committee of the Red Cross and with it the Diplomatic Conference did not accept this clause. The Committee had noted that conditions in camps were sometimes changed when visits were announced.


    ' First sentence. -- Selection of places to be visited '

    This sentence is directly connected with the last sentence of the previous paragraph and like it emphasizes the discretion left to inspecting representatives and delegates in the arrangement and carrying out of their visits. The choice of places to be visited is left entirely to the judgment of the Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross. It will depend on many circumstances: assessment of the conditions prevailing in the places concerned, complaints received concerning them, special requests from the country of origin, the date of the previous inspection, geographical conditions, etc. Visits may also take place at the request of one or more protected persons.

    ' Second sentence. -- Visits by compatriots '

    Article 86 of the 1929 Convention already provided that persons of the same nationality as the prisoners of war might be allowed to take part in visits to the camps. During the Second World War, this possibility was rarely utilized, mainly for security reasons. In view of its obvious humanitarian character, however, the provision was nevertheless repeated in the Third Convention of 1949 (Article 126 ), and repeated here.
    Article 116 authorizes civilian internees to receive visitors, especially near relatives. This will apply mainly to members of the internee's family who resided with him in the country where he is detained or in occupied countries. Article 142 also authorizes representatives of religious organizations and relief societies to visit protected persons.
    If, therefore, Article 143 were to be taken as applying only to the relatives of civilian internees and the representatives of relief societies, it would admittedly duplicate the two Articles mentioned above. In fact, while some duplication does occur, the provision nevertheless covers a wider field. The term "compatriot" used here includes both relatives and delegates of the national relief societies; it applies to everybody of the nationality of the internee with a particular interest, recognized by the Powers concerned, in visiting him or whom he himself might have a particular interest in meeting. Furthermore, the Protecting Powers themselves or the International Committee [p.579] of the Red Cross may consider it expedient to have their delegates accompanied by a compatriot of the persons visited, either for humanitarian motives, to bring a "breath of home" to the detained, or to allay certain fears or to carry out some supervision.
    Moreover, the provision enables the Detaining Powers, which might hesitate to agree to certain relatives or the delegates of certain societies being allowed to go freely and alone into the camp, under Articles 116 and 142 , to meet their obligations under the Convention nevertheless by asking that the visits should be made as part of the inspections by the Protecting Powers or the International Committee; this would give the necessary safeguards.
    The visits provided for here must be the subject of a preliminary agreement between those concerned, i.e. the Protecting Powers or the International Committee of the Red Cross on the one hand, and the Detaining or Occupying Power on the other. Furthermore, the agreement of the country of origin of the internees, a country of which the visitors will be nationals, must often be requested. That power, indeed, may legitimately wish its citizens not to go into enemy territory without its authorization.


    Mention was made in the General Comments (8) of the scope and importance of this provision which is also contained in the Third Convention and which gives express sanction for one of the main traditional activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross, i.e. visits to camps of prisoners of war and civilian internees. The International Committee's delegates had not been able to carry out those activities before except under special agreements concluded in advance with each of the Powers concerned. Now, however, they become to some degree automatic and cannot any longer be considered as being merely one of the "services" which the International Committee offered the Parties in conflict -- which it may continue to offer under Article 3 -- and which they were entirely free to reject.
    The representatives and delegates of the Protecting Powers and those of the International Committee are henceforth placed on a completely equal footing. Their rights and their duties are the same if allowance is made for their different spheres of action. This applies not only to camp visits proper but to visits to all places of every kind where protected persons may be found, and to interviews held with them without witnesses.
    [p.580] This task, entrusted to the Committee under the Convention, must not, of course, be taken to justify any restriction on the other activities it intends to develop on behalf of protected persons. Article 10 is definite on this matter. The Committee remains free to take any humanitarian initiative it may consider necessary in regard to camp visits or outside camps, whereas the Protecting Powers, even while supervising the application of the Convention, will always be restricted by the provisions of the Convention themselves and, in a general way, by the contract they will have concluded with the mandator Power.
    The approval which must be given for the appointment of delegates of the International Committee, and which the Committee has in any case always asked for, places them in the same position as the delegates of the Protecting Powers. It is normal that the Party to the conflict which is going to welcome them in its own territory or in territory occupied by it, should receive certain guarantees in this connection, guarantees which it also requests from the delegates of relief societies authorized by Article 142 to enter its territory.
    This approval will be asked for once only for every delegate. It will not therefore have to be obtained anew for every single journey.

    Notes: (1) [(1) p.567] See the commentary on Article 9;

    (2) [(1) p.568] Particularly Article 23 (supervision of
    medical supplies, food and clothing for the civilian
    population), Article 55 (supervision of food and medical
    supplies for the population in occupied countries),
    Articles 61 and 109 (supervision of the distribution of
    relief consignments in occupied countries and to civilian
    internees), and Article 71 (penal procedure);

    (3) [(2) p.568] It should be recalled that the titles in the
    margin, used in this commentary as titles for the
    Articles, have no legal force. They were not adopted by
    the Conference but drafted afterwards by the secretariat;

    (4) [(1) p.570] I.e., persons who happened to be on enemy
    territory when hostilities broke out and who were interned
    because of their nationality alone;

    (5) [(1) p.571] During the Second World War, the delegates of
    the International Committee paid more than 11,000 visits
    to prisoner-of-war and civilian internee camps;

    (6) [(1) p.573] A list of this description is to be found in
    the ' Report of the International Committee of the Red
    Cross on its activities during the Second World War, '
    Vol. I, pp. 233-238;

    (7) [(1) p.577] See commentary on Article 9;

    (8) [(1) p.579] See above p. 567;