ICRC databases on international humanitarian law
  • Print page
Commentary - Civil defence in occupied territories
    [p.745] Article 63 -- Civil defence in occupied territories


    [p.746] General remarks

    2469 When it adopted this article, Committee II also adopted the following comments (1) (Articles 55 and 56 referred to being the present Articles 62 ' (General protection) ' and 63 ):

    "Article 55 applies to both occupied and non-occupied territory. Article 56 is thus supplementary to Article 55 as far as occupied territories are concerned. Article 63 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is also applicable. It was emphasized in the debate that this article is not intended to strengthen the position of an Occupying Power."

    2470 The comments therefore contain three points which were repeatedly raised during the CDDH:

    -- the ' supplementary ' character of Article 63 in relation to Article 62 ' (General protection); ' (2)
    -- the equally supplementary character of Article 63 in relation to Article 63 , paragraph 2, of the Fourth Convention; (3) [p.747]
    -- the intent not to strengthen the rights of the Occupying Power. (4)

    2471 These comments should be borne in mind in an examination of the various provisions of the article.

    2472 Finally, it will be noted that the article of the 1973 draft has been considerably expanded from two to six paragraphs, particularly in the light of numerous amendments and during the deliberations of the Group set up by Committee II to examine the Chapter on civil defence.

    2473 In fact the substantive changes are less far-reaching than they seem to be:

    -- paragraph 1 is fairly closely based on paragraph 1 of the 1973 draft;
    -- the substance of paragraph 2 was almost entirely included in paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the 1973 draft;
    -- although paragraph 3, relating to the disarming of civil defence personnel by the Occupying Power, had indeed not been mentioned, it could legitimately be considered to be self-evident;
    -- paragraphs 4 and 5 are developed from paragraph 2 of the 1973 draft, concerning requisition or diversion of civil defence ' matériel ' by the Occupying Power, a problem which was discussed at length in Committee II;
    -- finally, paragraph 6 appropriately specifies that under no circumstances may shelters provided for civil defence be requisitioned or diverted from their proper use, even if they do not belong to civil defence organizations. The 1973 draft did not include this provision.

    Paragraph 1 -- Facilities which the Occupying Power must provide

    ' First sentence '

    2474 Despite a question from one delegate, (5) the concept of occupied territories was not re-examined with respect to civil defence. (6)

    2475 Civil defence organizations are those which were defined in Article 61 ' (Definitions and scope), ' sub-paragraph (b). However, only ' civilian ' organizations are covered here. The question of military personnel who, while serving within civil defence organizations, have fallen into the power of the enemy in occupied territory, is dealt with in Article 67 ' (Members of the armed forces and military units assigned to civil defence organizations). ' (7)

    2476 The authorities concerned here are those of the Occupying Power or those appointed by the latter.

    2477 This first sentence is of a general character, while the other sentences of the paragraph specify its instances of application. (8) However, the "facilities [p.748] necessary" for the performance of civil defence tasks are not listed or explained, either in this sentence or in the rest of the paragraph. The phrase refers above all to making the performance of the civil defence mission possible; on the one hand, by authorizing access to places where the tasks must be performed and by allowing personnel assigned to civil defence to carry out their activities, on the other hand, by authorizing and even assisting civil defence organizations in procuring the ' matériel ' necessary for such tasks, such as blankets or other objects essential for shelter, and equipment essential for fire-fighting such as boots or spare parts for vehicles.

    2478 Nevertheless, the difficulty with this question is not so much what precisely is included in the rule, but how far it reaches.

    2479 The "Outline for Draft Regulations" on civil defence presented to the Conference of Government Experts (referred to below as "Outline") indicated that civil defence organizations would be granted in occupied territory "every facility for them to carry out their tasks, subject to temporary and exceptional measures that may be imposed by the Occupying Power for urgent reasons of security". (9)

    2480 In the same vein, the words "to the extent feasible" were added in an amendment submitted in Committee II (10) because, according to the sponsors of the amendment, it is not very realistic to provide such an obligation "without qualification". (11)

    2481 Finally, another amendment provided that "the provisions of the present article are subject to such temporary and exceptional measures in derogation as may be necessary for urgent reasons of security of the Occupying Power". (12) The sponsor of the amendment based his proposal in this respect on Article 63 of the Fourth Convention, which actually imposes obligations on the Occupying Power "subject to [...] urgent reasons of security". (13)

    2482 However, the expression "to the extent feasible" was rejected, particularly because it was considered that this weakened the text, (14) and "the occupying authorities must not be left free to interpret the situation in a sense which went against the interests of the civilian population." (15)

    2483 This decision does indeed show how rigorous the obligation imposed on the Occupying Power is. And yet it cannot be claimed that it is imposed without taking into account the circumstances and the material possibilities of fulfilling it: no one can be required to do the impossible. However, by rejecting this amendment the Diplomatic Conference emphasized that the argument that something is impossible should not be too readily adopted as an excuse.

    2484 For that matter, if the situation really does render impossible the concession of certain facilities, the obligations of the Occupying Power with regard to civil [p.749] defence organizations are only secondary as compared with its obligations towards the civilian population. It is in particular by authorizing civil defence and relief actions coming from outside that the Occupying Power could try to compensate for its own deficiencies (16)

    ' Second sentence '

    2485 The "Outline" provided that personnel permanently assigned to civil defence tasks could not be forced to undertake other activities against their will, but that personnel assigned to such tasks on a temporary basis could be employed on work as laid down in Article 51 of the Fourth Convention, provided that such work would not jeopardize their civil defence tasks. (17) The text presented at the second session of the Conference of Government Experts further added that permanent civil defence personnel could not be compelled to serve outside occupied territory. (18) During the second session it was decided to remove the distinction between permanent and temporary personnel and not to permit any such personnel to be compelled to perform tasks other than civil defence tasks or to serve outside occupied territory. (19) The 1973 draft was worded in this sense, even laying down a prohibition on all relocation, i.e., including transfers within occupied territory.

    2486 The text which was finally accepted is based on an amendment. (20) It places greater emphasis on the end result -- the proper execution of tasks -- than on the personnel themselves. For that matter, this concern was apparent when the above-mentioned amendment was submitted and one of the co-sponsors remarked that a prohibition against compelling personnel to undertake "activities unconnected with their functions" went too far, and that the text proposed by the amendment included "all that was required from the civil defence stand point". (21)

    2487 In fact, the freedom of the Occupying Power is quite limited, despite the apparently less restrictive wording which was adopted.

    2488 First of all, the question of relocation of civil defence personnel was in the end left out. This question is actually covered by Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, which applies in occupied territories to civilian civil defence personnel, as well as to all civilians: that article clearly prohibits forced transfers, except where "imperative military reasons" so demand, and in such cases movement outside the bounds of the occupied territory is prohibited, "except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement". (22)

    2489 Then, with regard to the question of imposing an obligation to work on civil defence personnel, the general provisions of Article 51 of the Fourth Convention [p.750] are to be taken into consideration. These provisions lay down specifically that "the legislation in force in the occupied country concerning working conditions, and safeguards as regards, in particular, such matters as wages, hours of work" etc. shall be applicable.

    2490 These general rules, added to the rule under consideration here, show that it will be practically impossible to impose legitimately other work on persons assigned full-time to civil defence tasks (the laws on working hours contained in the legislation of the occupied territory would probably prohibit this); and that the possibility of compelling personnel assigned to such tasks on a part-time basis to do other work is limited on the one hand by the prohibition of forcibly transferring such persons, and on the other hand, by the obligation under the labour law of the occupied territory to leave them sufficient time to perform their civil defence tasks.

    ' Third sentence '

    2491 This third sentence repeats almost word for word Article 63 , paragraph 1(b), of the Fourth Convention. (23) In a slightly different form it was included in the "Outline" (24) and it is virtually the same as the 1973 draft.

    2492 However, in Committee II a draft amendment was introduced which would have seriously modified its meaning. (25) It proposed to end the sentence after the word "organizations", i.e., to purely and simply prohibit the Occupying Power from changing in anything the structure or personnel of civil defence organizations from the way they were before the occupation.

    2493 The ' raison d'être ' of this proposal was clearly explained: "it was intended not to leave the Occupying Power as sole judge of the desirability of making changes in the structure and personnel of civil defence bodies" (26)

    2494 This proposal was finally not adopted, particularly because it seemed necessary to many delegates to maintain a balance between rights and duties of the Occupying Power, if there was to be any chance of these provisions being applied. (27)

    2495 This provision admittedly has the disadvantage of leaving a broad margin of interpretation and therefore to the subjective judgment of the Occupying Power. [p.751] However, seen in the context of the article as a whole, which is severe upon the Occupying Power, it does not allow any underhand abuses (28)

    ' Fourth sentence '

    2496 Although it is expressed in a rather different way, the concept contained in this sentence was present already in the "Outline". (29)

    2497 The 1973 draft also provided that the Occupying Power could not demand that civil defence bodies and their personnel "give the nationals of the Occupying Power priority". (30)

    2498 During the Diplomatic Conference an amendment was proposed to delete this sentence (31) because it was "superfluous and in contradiction with the Geneva Conventions' system". (32) On this point it is true that the provision practically flows from the other provisions of the paragraph, and more generally, from other rules and principles of international humanitarian law: as the transfer of the Occupying Power's own civilian population into occupied territory is prohibited by the Fourth Convention, (33) there should really only be ' military ' nationals of the Occupying Power in such territory, apart perhaps from exception of some civilians who had settled there before the occupation. As civil defence should be restricted to tasks intended to protect the civilian population, (34) it would lose its special status if military nationals of the Occupying Power were given priority. From a more general point of view, moreover, international humanitarian law protects victims as such, and not on the basis of criteria such as that of nationality. (35)

    2499 However, the concern not to allow any ambiguity in this respect finally prevailed, and following two amendments, (36) a sentence was even added stipulating that no obligation may be imposed on civil defence organizations to give priority to the interests of the Occupying Power. From the point of view of the organizations themselves we may add that their obligation not to give priority applies both to nationals of the Occupying Power and, a fortiori, to the interests of the Occupying Power, if they wish to retain their special status.

    [p.752] Paragraph 2 -- Prohibition of coercion prejudicial to the civilian population

    2500 Paragraph 1 is basically aimed at enabling civil defence organizations to perform their tasks, on the one hand, by granting them the necessary facilities, and on the other hand, by allowing them to retain their structure and by keeping them from tasks which do not fall within their competence.

    2501 Paragraph 2 deals with interference of the Occupying Power with the ' manner ' of performing civil defence tasks.

    2502 It could be considered that such a concern was present in the text of the 1973 draft, though it had never been clearly expressed.

    2503 In fact, this paragraph addresses a fundamental question, though only partially. The amendment from which it was developed actually proposed the addition of a paragraph to provide that: "the Occupying Power shall not compel civil defence bodies to perform their activities". (37)

    2504 At first sight this proposal seems to serve the interests of civil defence organizations more than those of the civilian population. In fact, its ' raison d'être ' was not solely based on reasons related to the purposes of international humanitarian law, i.e., to ensure the most extensive and effective protection possible to victims of armed conflict. It followed from the view of a government whose "citizens were forbidden to accept and recognize occupation". (38)

    2505 This approach clearly fell outside the field of international humanitarian law, and the wording which was finally adopted replaces it in this context by placing the emphasis on the interests of the civilian population. In fact, it does not prohibit the Occupying Power from compelling, coercing or inducing civil defence organizations to perform their tasks if this is in the interests of the civilian population. It only purports to prevent the performance of tasks ' prejudicial to the interests ' of the civilian population.

    2506 Of course, this allows for a margin of judgment. However, it is clear that in the context of international humanitarian law it is only legitimate to refer to material or immaterial prejudicial effects when they are unrelated to the political situation. To give a precise example, it is not legitimate to claim that lack of action of a civil defence organization with regard to flood victims is in the interests of the population because in disorganizing the Occupying Power it would be bringing the liberation of the territory nearer: international humanitarian law only has any chance of being observed if such considerations are scrupulously avoided and not taken into account in interpreting its provisions.

    2507 The question arises how far the Occupying Power can go to make civil defence organizations perform their tasks in the interests of the civilian population. ' To compel ' means to impose by means of rules or regulations which have the force of law, in general on pain of punishment; ' to coerce ' means to impose by force; ' to [p.753] induce ' means to bring pressure bearing with promises to give advantages or threats to remove them.

    2508 The way in which tasks are imposed on civil defence organizations should of course be within acceptable limits, but this is not the place for defining such limits. In fact, they are the same limits as those set out in Article 51 of the Fourth Convention concerning compulsory labour, which is allowed in particular when the work concerned is necessary for public utility services. (39)

    2509 In fact, there is a choice between two alternatives: either members of civil defence organizations do their best to accomplish their tasks and the Occupying Power should hardly ever intervene; or they engage in passive resistance by refusing to perform such tasks and the Occupying Power may intervene to safeguard the interests of the civilian population; it can do so either in the context of paragraph 2, or, where necessary, through measures affecting the structure or personnel of civil defence organizations. (40)

    2510 However, two points should be added. First, the choice is presented in a completely neutral way in the context of this commentary: there is no question here of taking sides in a matter of conscience and of inducing people in an occupied country to perform work for the benefit of the civilian population, or conversely to refuse to perform such work, with the aim of resisting the Occupying Power either passively or actively. We simply want to indicate that certain rights or obligations of the Occupying Power depend on this choice.

    2511 Furthermore, the situation mentioned above is based on the presumption that the Occupying Power acts in accordance with the law, which is of course not always the case. The real problem is that of an Occupying Power which uses the interests of the civilian population as a pretext for imposing modifications on the structure or personnel or on the courses of action of civil defence organizations when such modifications are actually not in the interests of that population. It is to avoid this type of abuse that one delegation stated in its explanation of vote that these provisions "guarantee civil defence organizations the right to decide whether or not in the specific case of occupation, continuation of their activities is in the interest of the civilian population". (41)

    2512 Admittedly, the texts are too clear to be able to give legal support to this view. However, this point of view, which was not an isolated one, (42) should induce any Occupying Power to act with great caution before interfering with civil defence organizations, and it should induce the Protecting Powers or their substitutes to be vigilant with regard to the proper motives for such interference.

    [p.754] Paragraph 3 -- Disarming civil defence personnel

    2513 The question of civil defence personnel bearing arms was not discussed in the context of this article, but with regard to Articles 65 ' (Cessation of protection) ' and 67 ' (Members of the armed forces and military units assigned to civil defence organizations). ' (43)

    2514 However, as some delegations were doubtful about the advisability of permitting civil defence personnel to carry arms, a compromise was achieved with the introduction of this paragraph which explicitly grants the Occupying Power the right to disarm such personnel. (44) According to the Rapporteur of Working Group A, the words "for reasons of security" are self-explanatory and serve to reassure the Occupying Power, "if it noticed that civil defence personnel were armed". (45)

    2515 The expression "for reasons of security" should therefore be considered to be self-explanatory and does not constitute a condition to be met by the Occupying Power, which may disarm civil defence personnel without the need for any justification.

    2516 Finally, the question could arise whether this paragraph is really necessary. One delegation explicitly claimed that this was not the case, (46) In fact, it must be admitted that it is hardly possible to contest the Occupying Power's competence to disarm civil defence personnel in occupied territory, even without this paragraph which resulted from a compromise rather than from an argument of logic. For that matter, the absence of such a provision regarding civilian medical personnel in no way implies a prohibition for the Occupying Power to disarm such personnel. (47)

    2517 What is required of the Occupying Power in both situations is to facilitate the task of such personnel and therefore, if they are disarmed, to ensure in another way their safety and that of persons in their care.

    Introduction to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6

    2518 According to Article 69, paragraph 3, of the 1972 draft, "buildings, equipment and means of transport belonging to civil defence organizations shall remain for the use of the civilian population" and "may only be requisitioned temporarily, in cases of urgent necessity, and provided the requisition does not seriously jeopardize the protection of the civilian population". (48)

    2519 This approach was restrictive in that it only covered buildings, ' matériel, ' and transports "which has been permanently assigned" to civil defence bodies. (49) On [p.755] the other hand, as regards requisitions, the fact that these were not referred to was not because of an intent to rule them out, but because it was "considered preferable not to touch on this problem, rather than to introduce a prohibition which carried numerous reservations and exceptions that might be abused by the Occupying Power", and thus, it was therefore "dealt with under the rules of international law with regard to requisitions", i.e., in particular Article 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907. (50)

    2520 The question of requisitions was discussed at length during the Diplomatic Conference. The approach of the 1973 draft was not adopted in the end, as provisions based on Article 14 ' (Limitations on requisition of civilian medical units), ' paragraphs 2 and 3, were preferred. (51)

    2521 Previously a proposal had been made to simply prohibit the requisition of buildings, ' matériel ' and transports belonging to civil defence organizations; (52) the reference to the Hague Regulations, which was supported by some, (53) was opposed by others; (54) others still had indicated their preference for not mentioning requisition, but without referring implicitly to the Hague Regulations. (55)

    2522 Thus the solution which was adopted was a compromise based on the provisions of Article 14 ' (Limitations on requisition of civilian medical units). ' It comprises a general rule prohibiting requisitions in one paragraph, and describes the exceptions in a second paragraph.

    2523 Moreover, paragraph 6 of the article under consideration here reserves a special treatment for civil defence shelters. (56)

    Paragraph 4

    2524 The objects covered by this paragraph are buildings, and ' matériel ' as defined in Article 61 ' (Definitions and scope), ' sub-paragraph (d), which therefore covers transports.

    2525 It covers not only buildings and ' matériel ' "belonging to [...] civil defence bodies", but also those which are "used by civil defence bodies". This addition [p.756] was made following an amendment, (57) justified by the argument that "it was perfectly conceivable that civil defence bodies might make use of buildings etc. which did not officially belong to them", and it was therefore also necessary to protect such objects. (58) The distinction between objects assigned to civil defence on a permanent basis and those not so assigned, which was made in the Commentary on 1973 draft, was therefore not adopted. (59)

    2526 First of all, it is prohibited to ' divert such objects from their proper use, ' in other words, to require them to be used for purposes other than that for which they are intended. For example, this would be the case if an ambulance were ordered to transport ' matériel. '

    2527 Secondly, it is prohibited to ' requisition ' such objects, which means that the Occupying Power may not secure them to meet the needs of the occupying army.

    2528 However, this prohibition is mitigated inasmuch as it only applies "if such diversion or requisition would be harmful to the civilian population". Thus in general any diversion or requisition which is not harmful to the civilian population is possible in principle, though it may not necessarily be permitted, for paragraph 5 lays down two additional conditions.

    2529 This general condition is certainly not always easy to evaluate and requires good faith on the part of those who must apply it. However, it has the great advantage of placing the interests of the civilian population in occupied territory above any others as regards humanitarian considerations.

    2530 Finally, it should be noted that the detrimental effects should be assessed not only at the time when objects are diverted or requisitioned, but throughout the duration of such diversion or requisition.

    Paragraph 5

    2531 This paragraph is subordinate to the preceding paragraph, to which it adds two cumulative conditions:

    -- First, buildings and ' matériel ' diverted from their proper use or requisitioned, must be "necessary for other needs of the civilian population". This brief formula means that the Occupying Power must use such objects to carry out other obligations that it has vis à vis the civilian population of the occupied territory, and not for its own needs.
    -- Secondly, the requisition or diversion should continue only as long as the above-mentioned need for them remains. In other words, diverted or requisitioned objects which are no longer necessary to meet the needs of the civilian population must be returned to their first use, even if they are no longer essential to the performance of civil defence tasks. This provision rules out the possibility that requisitions apparently made in the interests of the civilian population, may be later reassigned to another use.

    [p.757] 2532 To summarize, let us take a practical example: a civil defence organization has several trucks to ensure transportation of its personnel in case of emergency. Some of these are not in use because they are not needed. The Occupying Power would be acting legitimately if it requisitioned them as a provisional arrangement to transport pupils from home to school with a view to meeting a technical shortage. In fact, it has a duty to facilitate the proper functioning of institutions devoted to the care and education of children. (60) However, if a sudden disaster once again rendered the trucks indispensable for civil defence tasks, they should be restored immediately. Finally, if that disaster did not occur, it should in any case restore the trucks to the civil defence organizations, irrespective of the needs of such organizations at the time, as soon as the trucks were no longer necessary for transporting the pupils, for example, if the means of transportation which provided this service previously were repaired.

    2533 Thus strict limits are imposed on diversion or requisition, although some wished to go even further, either by prohibiting all requisition, (61) or by imposing two apparently more draconian provisions, as did the 1972 draft: (62) the urgent need for requisition and its temporary character. (63)

    2534 However, from the humanitarian point of view, the solution which was adopted seems to be an excellent one, since it best serves the general interests of the civilian population, while preserving the specific interests of civil defence, provided of course that it is applied in good faith.

    Paragraph 6

    2535 The specific mention of shelters provided for the use of the civilian population, (64) which was not made in the 1973 draft, was introduced by an amendment, though this was limited to the mention of "public shelters". (65) One delegation, supporting this proposal, considered that this prohibition on diverting shelters from their proper use or requisitioning them, should be extended to private shelters in the interests of the civilian population. (66)

    2536 This suggestion was followed and the prohibition on diverting (the expression "from their proper use" being understood) and on requisitioning shelters was extended:

    - on the one hand, to all shelters made available to the civilian population, i.e., basically all public shelters, irrespective of any assessment of whether they are needed;
    [p.758]
    - on the other hand, to all other shelters, including private shelters, this time depending on a criterion of need. In this case, moreover, the "need" should be evaluated according to the way "need" was defined prior to the occupation, and their requisition may not be justified, for example, by the argument that the Occupying Power considers all civil defence efforts superfluous. Thus requisition should remain exceptional: it could apply, for example, to a private individual who had built himself an underground palace.

    2537 Moreover, if there were no shelters, or virtually no shelters before the occupation, and the need for shelters arose, particularly because of air raids, the general responsibility of the Occupying Power towards the population of occupied territory requires that a solution be found. This is where the concept of shelters "needed" by the civilian population becomes significant, as every adequate building, particularly underground, should be assigned to shelter the population as a priority. Finally, it should be noted that a separate paragraph has been devoted to shelters because, as we have seen, they do not necessarily come under the responsibility of civil defence organizations, and therefore if all shelters are to be covered, it is necessary to distinguish them from the buildings and ' matériel ' belonging to such organizations. (67)

    ' Y.S. '


    NOTES

    (1) [(1) p.746] O.R. XIII, p. 369, CDDH/406/Rev.1, para. 49;

    (2) [(2) p.746] On this subject, cf. also in particular O.R. XII, p. 65, CDDH/II/SR.60, para. 61; p. 71, CDDH/II/SR.61, para. 11; p. 121, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 25; p. 122, para. 29; cf. also commentary Art. 62, supra, pp. 738-739;

    (3) [(3) p.746] On this subject, cf. also in particular O.R. XII, p. 60, CDDH/II/SR.60, para. 35; p. 119, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 17; p. 121, paras. 26-27; p. 125, para. 46;

    (4) [(4) p.747] On this subject, cf. also in particular O.R. VI, pp. 236-237, CDDH/II/SR.42, Annex (Romania); pp. 241-242 (Yugoslavia);

    (5) [(5) p.747] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 70, CDDH/II/SR.61, para. 4;

    (6) [(6) p.747] On this question, cf. ' Commentary IV, ' in particular pp. 21-22 (Art. 2, para. 2) and pp. 274-276 (Art. 47);

    (7) [(7) p.747] Cf. commentary Art. 67, para. 2, infra, pp. 799-802;

    (8) [(8) p.747] In this sense, cf. ' Commentary Drafts, ' p. 73 (Art. 56, para. 1);

    (9) [(9) p.748] CE/3b, p. 154;

    (10) [(10) p.748] Cf. O.R. III, p. 255, CDDH/II/323;

    (11) [(11) p.748] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 119, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 14;

    (12) [(12) p.748] O.R. III p. 256, CDDH/II/346;

    (13) [(13) p.748] Cf. Art 63 of the Fourth Convention, introductory sentence, and O.R. XII, p. 121, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 26;

    (14) [(14) p.748] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 328, CDDH/II/SR.86, para. 5;

    (15) [(15) p.748] Ibid., p. 330, para. 16;

    (16) [(16) p.749] On this subject, cf. in particular Arts. 64 and 70, para. 1;

    (17) [(17) p.749] Cf. CE/3b, pp. 154-155;

    (18) [(18) p.749] Cf. CE 1972, ' Commentaries, ' Part I, pp. 141-142 (Art. 69, para. 2);

    (19) [(19) p.749] Cf. ' CE 1972, Report ', Vol. I, p. 167, paras. 3.323-3.324;

    (20) [(20) p.749] Cf. O.R. III, p. 257, CDDH/II/404;

    (21) [(21) p.749] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 119, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 15;

    (22) [(22) p.749] For further details on this subject cf. ' Commentary IV, ' pp. 279-282 (Art. 49);

    (23) [(23) p.750] Sub-paragraph (b) provides: "The Occupying Power may not require any changes in the personnel or structure of these societies, which would prejudice the aforesaid activities";

    (24) [(24) p.750] In fact it provided that the Occupying Power may not "make in the personnel or management of the organizations any changes that might prejudice the efficient discharge of their tasks" (CE/3b, p. 154);

    (25) [(25) p.750] Cf. O.R. III, p. 257, CDDH/II/424;

    (26) [(26) p.750] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 327, CDDH/II/SR.86, para. 2;

    (27) [(27) p.750] Cf. in particular ibid., pp. 123-124, CDDH/II/SR.65, paras. 37 and 41;

    (28) [(28) p.751] As regards the purpose of this provision, it is also interesting to refer to the following passage from the commentary on Article 63 of the Fourth Convention, which applies to civilian civil defence organizations: "The clause aims at prohibiting arbitrary removal of the directors of a Society, the introduction of new officials or, in general, any measures whose object is to make the Societies conform to the policy of the Occupying Power [...]" (' Commentary IV, ' p. 332);

    (29) [(29) p.751] Cf. CE/3b, p. 154, sub-para. (a)(iii);

    (30) [(30) p.751] Cf. draft Art. 56, para. 1, last sentence;

    (31) [(31) p.751] Cf. O.R. III, p. 256, CDDH/II/358;

    (32) [(32) p.751] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 121, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 24;

    (33) [(33) p.751] Cf. Fourth Convention, Art. 49, para. 6;

    (34) [(34) p.751] On this subject, cf. commentary Art. 61, sub-para. (a), supra, pp. 720-722;

    (35) [(35) p.751] On this subject, cf. particularly commentary Art. 9, para. 1, supra, pp. 138-140;

    (36) [(36) p.751] Cf. O.R. III, p. 255, CDDH/II/323; p. 257, CDDH/II/404;

    (37) [(37) p.752] Ibid., p. 255, CDDH/II/340;

    (38) [(38) p.752] According to this view, civil defence organizations are obliged, even in the case of occupation, to obey the orders from the authorities of their own government who direct "the general defence of the people. That obligation also applied to the civil defence system which was not to become a part of the aggressor's machinery". Cf. O.R. XII, pp. 120-121, CDDH/II/SR.65, paras. 20-24;

    (39) [(39) p.753] On this subject, cf. ' Commentary IV, ' pp. 293-298;

    (40) [(40) p.753] Cf. commentary para. 1, third sentence, supra, pp. 750-751. Cf. in addition Art. 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907;

    (41) [(41) p.753] 41. Cf. O.R. VI, pp. 241-242, CDDH/SR.42, Annex (Yugoslavia);

    (42) [(42) p.753] Cf. also ibid., pp. 236-237 (Romania) and, especially, the last sentence of the commentaries adopted by Committee II with that article: supra, p. 746;

    (43) [(43) p.754] Cf. commentary Art. 65, para. 3, infra, pp. 774-778 and Art. 67, para. 1(d), infra, pp. 797-798;

    (44) [(44) p.754] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 382, CDDH/II/SR.91, para. 62;

    (45) [(45) p.754] Ibid., p. 381, para. 59;

    (46) [(46) p.754] Cf. O.R. VI, p. 229, CDDH/SR.42, Annex (Indonesia);

    (47) [(47) p.754] Cf. commentary Art. 15, para. 3, supra, p. 194;

    (48) [(48) p.754] ' CE 1972, Report ', vol. I, pp. 167-168;

    (49) [(49) p.754] Cf. ' Commentary Drafts ', p. 74 (Art. 56, para. 2);

    (50) [(50) p.755] Cf. ibid. (Art. 56, para. 2 and note 43). Article 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 reads: "Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
    Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.";

    (51) [(51) p.755] In this sense, cf. O.R. XII, p. 381, CDDH/II/SR.91, para. 57;

    (52) [(52) p.755] Cf. O.R. III, p. 254, CDDH/II/70; p. 258, CDDH/II/425;

    (53) [(53) p.755] Cf. in particular O.R. XII, p. 60, CDDH/II/SR.60, para. 35; p. 117, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 2; p. 123, para. 38;

    (54) [(54) p.755] Cf. in particular O.R. XI, pp. 581-582, CDDH/II/SR.51, para. 19;

    (55) [(55) p.755] Cf. in particular O.R. XII, p. 125, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 45;

    (56) [(56) p.755] Cf. ibid., p. 381, CDDH/II/SR.91, para. 57;

    (57) [(57) p.756] Cf. O.R. III, p. 255, CDDH/II/323;

    (58) [(58) p.756] Cf. O.R. XII, pp. 119-120, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 19;

    (59) [(59) p.756] Cf. supra, p. 754, and note 49;

    (60) [(60) p.757] Cf. Fourth Convention, Art. 50, para. 1;

    (61) [(61) p.757] Cf. supra, p. 755;

    (62) [(62) p.757] Cf. CE 1972, Report, Vol. I, p. 167 (Art. 69, para. 3, of the ICRC draft and of the draft of the Sub-Commission);

    (63) [(63) p.757] In this sense, cf. O.R. XII, p. 123, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 35;

    (64) [(64) p.757] On these, cf. commentary Art. 61, sub-para. (a)(iii), supra, pp. 723-724;

    (65) [(65) p.757] Cf. O.R. III, p. 254, CDDH/II/307;

    (66) [(66) p.757] Cf. O.R. XII, p. 123, CDDH/II/SR.65, para. 34;

    (67) [(67) p.758] Cf. also Art. 58, sub-para. (c);