Practice Relating to Rule 129. The Act of Displacement
Quick navigation
IMT Charter (Nuremberg)
Article 6 of the 1945 IMT Charter (Nuremberg) provides:
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(b) “War crimes:” namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, … deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory …
(c) “Crimes against humanity:” namely … deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war. 
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Germany, concluded by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto, annexed to the London Agreement, London, 8 August 1945, Article 6.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 45, fourth paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “In no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 45, fourth para.

Article 49, first paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “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.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 49, first para.

Under Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach of the Convention. 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 147.

Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 3(1) of the 1963 Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides: “No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national.” 
Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg, 16 September 1963, Article 3(1).

Article 4 of the 1963 Protocol 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights provides: “Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” 
Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg, 16 September 1963, Article 4.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 13 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:
An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 2200 A (XXI), 16 December 1966, Article 13.

American Convention on Human Rights
Article 22(5) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights states: “No one can be expelled from the territory of the state of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it.” Article 22(9) states: “The collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” 
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, 22 November 1969, also known as Pact of San José, Article 22(5) and (9).

Additional Protocol I
Under Article 85(4)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth [Geneva] Convention” is a grave breach of the Protocol. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 85(4)(a). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.

Additional Protocol II
Article 17 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides:
1. The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Should such displacements have to be carried out, all possible measures shall be taken in order that the civilian population may be received under satisfactory conditions of shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition.
2. Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for reasons connected with the conflict. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 17. Article 17 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 144.

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Article 12(5) of the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights states: “The mass expulsion of non-nationals shall be prohibited. Mass expulsion shall be that which is aimed at national, racial, ethnic or religious groups.” 
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted by the Eighteenth Ordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Nairobi, 27 June 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev.5, Article 12(5).

Convention against Torture
Article 3 of the 1984 Convention against Torture provides: “No State party shall expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” 
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 39/46, 10 December 1984, Article 3.

Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention
Article 16 of the 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention states:
1. Subject to the following paragraphs of this Article, the peoples concerned shall not be removed from the lands which they occupy.
2. Where the relocation of these peoples is considered necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with their free and informed consent. Where their consent cannot be obtained, such relocation shall take place only following appropriate procedures established by national laws and regulations, including public inquiries where appropriate, which provide the opportunity for effective representation of the peoples concerned. 
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, ILO Convention No. 169, adopted by the ILO General Conference, Geneva, 27 June 1989, Article 16.

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 6(e) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[f]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group” constitutes genocide when “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 6(e).

Pursuant to Article 7(1)(d) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[d]eportation or forcible transfer of the population”, “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack,” constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 7(1)(d).

Under Article 8(2)(a)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[u]nlawful deportation or transfer” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(a)(vii).

Under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “the deportation or transfer [by the Occupying Power] of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside [the territory it occupies]”, constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(viii).

Under Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”, constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(e)(viii).

UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea
Article 9 of the 2003 UN-Cambodia Agreement Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea provides:
The subject-matter jurisdiction of the Extraordinary Chambers shall be the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, crimes against humanity as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and such other crimes as defined in Chapter II of the Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers as promulgated on 10 August 2001.  
Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 9.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Agreement, Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended, further implements these provisions. 
Agreement between the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia Concerning the Prosecution under Cambodian Law of Crimes Committed During the Period of Democratic Kampuchea, Phnom Penh, 6 June 2003, Article 2.

Back to top
Lieber Code
Article 23 of the 1863 Lieber Code states: “Private citizens are no longer … carried off to distant parts”. 
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 23.

Report of the Commission on Responsibility
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility identified the deportation of civilians under inhuman conditions as a violation of the laws and customs of war. 
Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.

Allied Control Council Law No. 10
Article II of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10 provides:
1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:

(b) War crimes. Atrocities or offenses against persons or property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, … deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory …
(c) Crimes against humanity. Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to … deportation … or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population. 
Allied Control Council Law No. 10: Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes against Peace and against Humanity, enacted by the Allied Control Council of Germany, composed of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Berlin, 20 December 1945, Article II.

IMT Charter (Tokyo)
Article 5(c) of the 1946 IMT Charter (Tokyo) established individual responsibility for crimes against humanity, including “deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war”. 
Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, approved by an Executive Order, General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in Japan, Tokyo, 19 January 1946, amended on 26 April 1946, Article 5(c).

Nuremberg Principles
Principle VI of the 1950 Nuremberg Principles adopted by the International Law Commission provides that “deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory” is a war crime and that “deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population” is a crime against humanity. 
Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, adopted by the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/1316, New York, 5 June–29 July 1950, Principle VI(b) and (c).

UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict
Paragraph 5 of the 1974 UN Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict provides:
All forms of repression … of women and children, including … forcible eviction, committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories shall be considered criminal. 
Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 3318 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, § 5.

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1991)
Pursuant to Article 22(2)(a) of the 1991 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the “deportation or transfer of the civilian population” is regarded as an “exceptionally serious war crime”. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-third session, 29 April–19 July 1991, UN Doc. A/46/10, 1991, Article 22(2)(a).

Sarajevo Declaration on Humanitarian Treatment of Displaced Persons
In the 1992 Sarajevo Declaration on Humanitarian Treatment of Displaced Persons, the parties agreed “to promote initiatives at the regional, municipal and local levels aimed at preventing … displacement”. 
Sarajevo Declaration on Humanitarian Treatment of Displaced Persons, signed by the parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Sarajevo, 11 April 1992, annexed to Report of the UN Secretary-General pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 749, UN Doc. S/23836, 24 April 1992, Annex III, pp. 12–13.

Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.3 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides: “The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative reasons so demand.” 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.3.

Declaration on Humanitarian Assistance and Gradual Repatriation of Temporary Refugees and Displaced Persons from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Croatia
Paragraph 6 of the 1992 Declaration on Humanitarian Assistance and Gradual Repatriation of Temporary Refugees and Displaced Persons from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Croatia urged States to set up safe zones and humanitarian corridors to prevent displacement. 
Declaration on Humanitarian Assistance and Gradual Repatriation of Temporary Refugees and Displaced Persons from the War in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Republic of Croatia, signed by Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia, Ljubljana, 2 July 1992, § 6.

Cotonou Agreement on Liberia
In Article 18(1) of the 1993 Cotonou Agreement on Liberia, the parties committed themselves “to bring to an end any further external or internal displacements”. 
Cotonou Peace Agreement on Liberia between the Interim Government of National Unity of Liberia (IGNU) of the first part and the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) of the second part and the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO) of the third part, Cotonou, 25 July 1993, annexed to Letter dated 6 August 1993 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Benin to the UN addressed to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/26272, 9 August 1993, Article 18(1).

ICTY Statute
Under Article 2(g) of the 1993 ICTY Statute, the Tribunal is competent to prosecute unlawful deportation or transfer of civilians as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 2(g).

Article 5(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute provides that deportation, when committed against any civilian population, constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 5(d).

ICTR Statute
Under Article 3(d) of the 1994 ICTR Statute, deportation, when committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds, constitutes a crime against humanity. 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 3(d).

ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Under Article 20(a)(vii) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[u]nlawful deportation or transfer … of protected persons” is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(a)(vii).

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
The 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement provide:
Principle 5
All authorities and international actors shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, in all circumstances, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement of persons.
Principle 6
1. Every human being shall have the right to be protected against being arbitrarily displaced from his or her home or place of habitual residence.
2. The prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement:

(b) in situations of armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

Principle 9
States are under a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of indigenous peoples, minorities, peasants, pastoralists, and other groups with a special dependency on and attachment to their land. 
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, 11 February 1998, Principles 5, 6 and 9.

Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 3(7) of Part IV of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that the following are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever:
Practices that cause or allow the forcible evacuations or forcible reconcentration of civilians, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand; the emergence and increase of internally displaced families and communities. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part IV, Article 3(7).

Agreement on the Protection and Provision of Humanitarian Assistance in Sudan
Paragraph 5 of the 1999 Agreement on the Protection and Provision of Humanitarian Assistance in Sudan provides:
The parties to the conflict agree and guarantee that no beneficiary [of humanitarian assistance] will be forcibly relocated from his or her legal or recognized place of residence … When communities may be relocated they will be consulted on an individual and community basis on alternatives to relocation. Where communities are to be relocated, they are guaranteed individual and community participation in the relocation process, particularly prior to relocation, and will be given a reasonable period of notice prior to relocation. 
Agreement on the Implementation of Principles Governing the Protection and Provision of Humanitarian Assistance to War Affected Civilian Populations, concluded by the Government of Sudan, Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the United Nations-Operations Lifeline Sudan, Geneva, 15 December 1999, § 5.

Cairo Declaration
In paragraph 61 of the 2000 Cairo Declaration, African and EU heads of State and government condemned “the systematic tactic by parties to armed conflict of displacing the civilian population”. 
Cairo Declaration, adopted at the Africa-Europe Summit under the Aegis of the Organization of African Unity and the European Union, Cairo, 3–4 April 2000, § 61.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(a)(vii), “[u]nlawful deportation or transfer” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. According to Section 6(1)(b)(viii), “the deportation or transfer [by the Occupying Power] of all or parts of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. According to Section 6(1)(e)(viii), “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”, constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(a)(vii), (b)(viii) and (e)(viii).

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides:
Protected persons may not be transferred to a power which is not party to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV … In no case may a protected person be transferred to a State where he or she has reason to fear persecution on account of his or her political opinions or religious beliefs. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 4.019; see also Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.30(8).

The manual also provides:
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 another country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.008.

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states that “illegal deportations and transfers” constitute grave breaches. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.03.

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides: “Civilians should not be relocated.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 609.

The Guide further provides that “unlawfully deporting, transferring … a protected person” constitute “grave breaches or serious war crimes likely to warrant institution of criminal proceedings”. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1305.

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides that “unlawfully deporting, transferring … a protected person” constitute “grave breaches or serious war crimes likely to warrant institution of criminal proceedings”. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1315(d).

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Measures for the control of the population [in occupied territory] which are prohibited include … deportations.” 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 12.39.

The manual further states:
13.25 Grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions consist of any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Convention:

• unlawful deportation or transfer …

13.26 G. P. I [1977 Additional Protocol I] extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following … acts, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:

• … the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 13.25 and 13.26.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “the unlawful deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 27; see also Part I bis, p. 27 (crimes against humanity).

The Regulations also states that “the unlawful expulsion or transfer of a civilian” constitutes a “grave breach” of IHL. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 105; see also Part I bis, p. 45.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “the deportation or illegal transfer of part of or the entire population of an occupied territory within or outside of this territory” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 295, § 661; see also p. 187, § 492.B.

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “In no circumstances may a protected person be transferred to a state where he or she has reason to fear persecution on account of his political opinions or religious beliefs.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 11-6, § 46.

The Manual further states: “These core provisions which continue in effect preserve the right to a … protection against forced transfers, evacuations and deportations.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-2, § 14.

The manual specifies: “The following measures of population control are forbidden at all times: … deportations”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-5, § 41.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-5, § 41.

The manual also states: “In the case of civilians in the hands of the adverse party, it is also a grave breach: a. to unlawfully deport or transfer a protected person”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 14.

Moreover, the manual considers that the “deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of that territory within or out of the territory” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and that deportation is a crime against humanity. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 17 and p. 16-1, § 4.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers:
1204. Termination of occupation

2. The general termination of hostilities does not automatically terminate occupation. Occupation does not terminate until a state exercises sovereign authority over the area as part of its own territory. Most of the [1949 Geneva Convention IV] provisions concerning occupied territory continue in effect for one year after the general termination of hostilities. Thereafter, a number of core provisions continue in effect until the occupation is in fact terminated.
3. These core provisions, which continue in effect, preserve the right to basic humanitarian treatment, the right to a fair trial, and protection against forced transfers, evacuations and deportations.

1223. Control of persons in occupied territory

3. The following measures of population control are forbidden at all times:

e. deportations. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 1204.2–3 and 1223.3.e.

In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states: “In the case of civilians in the hands of the adverse party, it is also a grave breach … to unlawfully deport or transfer a protected person”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1607.6.a.

The manual further states that the “deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of that territory within or out of the territory” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.3.a.

The manual also refers to deportation as a crime against humanity. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1604.1.d.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand. If they do have to be displaced, arrangements must be made, if possible, for their shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1724.

Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “deportation of civilian populations” is a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and thus a war crime. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 108.

Colombia
Under Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995), it is prohibited for the parties to conflict to force the displacement of the civilian population. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 30; see also p. 46.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states that it is prohibited to “oblige civilian persons to move because of the conflict, except if security or imperative military reasons so demand”. 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 77.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
I. Grave violations

They are enumerated by the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, as well as by the Ivorian Penal Code.
They are:

- deportation or forced transfer of populations. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 29.

In Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
I.3. War crimes

This is by far the breach which can take the most varied forms. It relates to the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, namely the following acts directed against the persons or objects protected by these acts:

- unlawful deportation or transfer … of a civilian. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 44–45.

Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) prohibits “deportation or transfer out of or within an occupied territory”. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 62.
It also states that “unlawful deportation” falls under “grave breaches (war crimes)”. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 56.

Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states: “The [civilian] population may not … be deported outside the occupied territory.” 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 31.

The manual also states that the following “are currently considered as war crimes … if committed against any person not or no longer participating in hostilities: … unlawful deportations or transfers”. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 50; see also p. 51 (genocide).

Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “The following acts are representative of war crimes: … Offenses against civilian inhabitants of occupied territory, including … deportation”. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, p. 6-4, § 6.2.5.

France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides that “deportation or illegal transfer of population” constitutes a grave breach, which is a war crime. 
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 3.4.

France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides that “illegal transfer of the population” constitutes a grave breach, which is a war crime. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 7; see also Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 43.

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “The law of armed conflict prohibits forced displacement of populations.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 65.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Grave breaches of international humanitarian law are in particular: … deportation, illegal transfer or confinement of protected civilians”. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1209.

Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) prohibits “deportation or transfer out of or within an occupied territory”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 98.
It also states that “unlawful deportation” falls under “grave breaches (war crimes)”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 90.

Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that the occupying State has the duty “not to undertake forced transfers or to deport civilian persons outside the occupied territory”. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 48(8).

The manual further states that “forced deportation of the civilian population of the occupied territory to accomplish forced labour” is one of the principal war crimes incorporated in national legislation. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 84.

The manual adds that grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols are considered war crimes, including “transfer and deportation of the civilian population”. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 85.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “The States party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions undertake to: … prohibit … deportation.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 80(C); see also § 104.

In a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the manual also states:
234. Protection of persons
A. One of the most important provisions is the one prohibiting deportations. Individual and mass forcible transfers and 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 the reason. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 234(A); see also § 236.

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations are forbidden.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. VIII-5, § 5.

The manual considers that “the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory” by the occupying power is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-6.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “Forced displacement of civilians is forbidden … Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for reasons connected with the conflict.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-7.

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “kidnapping and deportation are forbidden”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0224(f).

In its chapter on the protection of the civilian population, the manual states: “Forced transfer and deportation of groups of people or individuals are prohibited.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0832.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
In principle, forced displacement of civilians (the civilian population) is prohibited. It is permitted only if the safety of the affected civilians or compelling military reasons dictate. Civilians may not be forced to leave their locality for reasons relating to internal armed conflict. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1040.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “In no circumstances may a protected person be transferred to a State where he has reason to fear persecution on account of his political opinions or religious beliefs.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1121(2).

The manual states that some provisions continue in effect until the occupation is in fact terminated, such as articles preserving “protection against forced transfers, evacuations and deportations”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1303(3).

The manual specifies that “impermissible measures of population control include: … e. deportations”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1322(3).

The manual also states: “In the case of civilians in the hands of the adverse Party … it is also a grave breach: a. unlawfully to deport or transfer a protected civilian”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1702(3).

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1823(1).

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states:
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are considered as serious war crimes when committed against:

(c) persons and property protected under the Civilian Convention [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV]: unlawful deportation or transfer. 
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6.

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
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. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 62.b.

The manual also states that war crimes include the “unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected person”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.a.(6).

Philippines
The Philippines’ Military Instructions (1989) states that emphasis should be placed on allowing the civilian population to remain in their homes, on the basis that the large-scale movement of civilians creates logistical and strategic difficulties for the military. 
Philippines, Safety of Innocent Civilians and Treatment of the Wounded and Dead, Directive to Commanders of Major Services and Area Commands, Office of the Chief of Staff, General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Ministry of National Defence, 6 September 1989, § 3(c).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “Deportation of the civilian population from the occupied territory to the territory of another state shall be prohibited.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 75.

With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states:
The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for reasons connected with the conflict. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 85.

South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” is a grave breach. 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 40. This manual is also included in Chapter 4 of the Draft Civic Education Manual of 1997.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides:
Mass or individual forced transfers, as well as deportations out of the occupied territory to the territory of the occupying Power or of another country (occupied or not), are prohibited, regardless of the motive. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 5.5.c.(5).

The manual further states that it “is a grave breach which shall be qualified as a war crime … deportation or forced transfer of population”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(1).

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of 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 the motive.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 5.5.c.(5); see also § 2.7.c.(3).

Sweden
Sweden’s Military Manual (1976) provides: “Any form of deportation of civilians to the home country of the occupying power is forbidden.” 
Sweden, Folkrätten – Internationella regler i krig, Blhang Svensk soldat, 1976, Section 6.1.3, p. 122.

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of civilian persons out of the occupied territory, are prohibited, regardless of the motive.”  
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 176; see also Article 153 and Lois et coutumes de la guerre, Manuel 51.7/III dfi, Armée suisse, 1984, p. 38 and Droit des gens en temps de guerre, Programme d’instruction fondé sur le Manuel 51.7/III “Lois et coutumes de la guerre”, Cours de base pour recrues de toutes les armes 97.2f, Armée suisse, 1986, p. 107.

According to the manual, “deportation and illegal transfers … constitute a grave breach”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 192 and 193(2).

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
1.2.15. “Deportation” is forced expulsion of a person, group of persons or a nation from the place of permanent residence to another State.

1.4.16. … It shall be prohibited to issue orders and instructions regarding forcible movement of civilian persons in connection with the armed conflict unless this is required by the considerations of their security.

1.8.5. Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include:

- deportation … or unlawful movement of the population of occupied territory (both within or outside this territory). 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.2.15, 1.4.16 and 1.8.5.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides: “In no circumstances may a protected person be transferred to a State where he has reason to fear persecution on account of his political opinions or religious beliefs.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 53.

The manual further states:
The Occupant is forbidden, regardless of motive, to carry out individual or mass forcible transfers or deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to his own territory or to that of any other country. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 560.

According to the manual, “unlawful deportation is a grave breach of the Convention”. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 560; see also § 625.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on occupied territory:
The occupying power is forbidden to transfer forcibly or deport protected persons from an occupied country either to its own territory or to that of any other state … Unlawful deportation or transfer is a grave breach of the [1949 Geneva Convention IV]. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.55–11.55.1.

In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual states: “It is prohibited to order the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.14.

In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual notes:
Grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions consist of any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant convention:

g. unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.24.

The manual further notes:
Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following:

c. the following, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the protocol:
(1) … the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.25.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides: “In no circumstances shall a protected person be transferred to a country where he or she may have reason to fear persecution for his or her political opinions or religious beliefs.” 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 284.

The manual further states:
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 motives. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 382.

According to the manual, “unlawful deportation or transfer … of a protected person” constitutes a grave breach. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 502(c).

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) refers to Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 14-6(b).

The US Naval Handbook (1995) provides: “The following acts are representative of war crimes: … offenses against civilian inhabitants of occupied territory, including … deportation”. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 6.2.5.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Draft Code of Military Justice (1998) provides that members of the armed forces who deport, forcibly transfer, take as hostage or unlawfully detain any protected person shall be liable to punishment. 
Argentina, Draft Code of Military Justice, 1998, Article 291, introducing a new Article 875(4) in the Code of Military Justice as amended, 1951.

Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “unlawful deportation or transfer” during an armed conflict and the transfer within or outside an occupied territory of its population constitute crimes against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.2(4) and Article 390.4(1); see also Article 392 (deportation as a crime against humanity) and Article 393 (forced displacement and enforced hand-over of children as parts of a genocide campaign).

Australia
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945), as amended in 2001, provides:
The deportation of a person to, or the internment of a person in, a death camp, a slave labour camp, or a place where persons are subjected to treatment similar to that undergone in a death camp or slave labour camp, is a serious [war] crime. 
Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, as amended in 2001, Section 6(4).

Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1991, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence”. 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1991, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended in 2007, states with respect to war crimes that are grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I:
268.32 War crime – unlawful deportation or transfer
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator unlawfully deports or transfers one or more persons to another country or to another location; and
(b) the person or persons are protected under one or more of the Geneva Conventions or under Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions; and
(c) the perpetrator knows of, or is reckless as to, the factual circumstances that establish that the person or persons are so protected; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.32, p. 324.

The Criminal Code Act also states with respect to war crimes that are serious violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in a non-international armed conflict:
268.89 War crime – displacing civilians
A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator orders a displacement of a civilian population; and
(b) the order is not justified by the security of the civilians involved or by imperative military necessity; and
(c) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 17 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended on 1 November 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act No. 177 of 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.89, p. 365.

Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “genocide by forcibly transferring children”; crimes against humanity, including “deportation or forcible transfer of population”; and war crimes, including “unlawful deportation or transfer” and “transfer of population” in international armed conflicts and “displacing civilians” in non-international armed conflicts.  
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.7, 268.11, 268.32, 268.45 and 268.89.

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) punishes the “driving away [of] the civilian population with other aims from the area where they legally live”. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 115.2; see also Article 107 (deportation or forcible transfer of population as a crime against humanity) and Article 103 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s International Crimes (Tribunal) Act (1973) states that the “violation of any humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts laid down in the Geneva Conventions of 1949” is a crime. It also states: “War crimes: namely violation of law or custom of war include … deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population in the territory of Bangladesh”. 
Bangladesh, International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973, Article 3(2)(d–e).

Barbados
The Geneva Conventions Act of Barbados (1980) provides: “A person who commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 … may be tried and punished by any court in Barbados that has jurisdiction in respect of similar offences in Barbados as if the grave breach had been committed in Barbados.” 
Barbados, Geneva Conventions Act, 1980, Section 3(2).

Belarus
Under Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999), “the transfer” of protected persons or “the deportation of the civilian population to slave labour” is identified as a “violation of the laws and customs of war”. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 135(1); see also Article 127 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Belgium
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, criminalizes as a grave breach the “unlawful deportation [or] transfer” of protected persons. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 1(3)(6); see also Article 1(2)(1) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:
A crime against humanity, as defined below, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, constitutes a crime under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title. In accordance with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

4. deportation or forcible transfer of population. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 ter, § 4.

The Penal Code further states:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

9. the unlawful deportation, transfer, or displacement … of a civilian protected by the [1949 Geneva] Convention [IV] on the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict, or a person protected by [1977] Additional Protocols I and II to the … 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(9).

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:
A crime against humanity, as defined below, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, constitutes a crime under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title. In accordance with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

4. deportation or forcible transfer of population. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 bis, § 4.

The Law further states:
War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

6. the unlawful deportation, transfer, or displacement … of a civilian protected by the [1949 Geneva] Convention [IV] on the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict, or a person protected by [1977] Additional Protocols I and II to the … 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(6).

Bosnia and Herzegovina
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), “whoever in violation of rules of international law applicable in time of war, armed conflict or occupation … orders displacement” of the civilian population commits a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(1); see also Article 153 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 433(1); see also Article 432 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) criminalizes the following as an act of genocide:
Whoever, with an aim to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, orders perpetration or perpetrates any of the following acts:

e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 171(e).

The Criminal Code criminalizes the following act as a crime against humanity:
(1) Whoever, as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of such an attack, perpetrates any of the following acts:

d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 172(1)(d).

The Criminal Code also states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or imposing “the dislocation or displacement [of civilians]”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(d).

Botswana
Botswana’s Geneva Conventions Act (1970) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Botswana, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] conventions”. 
Botswana, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 3(1).

Bulgaria
Under Bulgaria’s Penal Code (1968), as amended in 1999, “unlawful deportations” are offences. 
Bulgaria, Penal Code as amended, 1968, Article 412; see also Article 416(c) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
[The following are] considered as war crimes:
A. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 8 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts aimed at persons or objects protected by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions:

g) unlawful deportation or transfer …
D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

h) ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to an armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(A)(g) and (D)(h); see also Articles 2(e) (genocide) and 3(d) (crimes against humanity).

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:
1. Any of the following grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions … :

7°. Unlawful deportation or transfer [of the population] …

2. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

8°. … [T]he deportation or transfer [by the occupying power] of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

5. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

8°. Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(1)(7°), (2)(8°) and (5)(8°).

Cambodia
Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001) provides:
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all suspects who committed or ordered the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Convention[s] of 12 August 1949 … which were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979.  
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, Article 6.

Cambodia’s Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended in 2004, provides:
Article 4
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all Suspects who committed the crimes of genocide as defined in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, and which were committed during the period from 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979.
The acts of genocide … mean any acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:

- forcibly transferring children from one group to another group.

Article 5
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all suspects who committed crimes against humanity during the period 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979.
Crimes against humanity … are any acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, on national, political, ethnical, racial or religious grounds, such as:

- deportation;

Article 6
The Extraordinary Chambers shall have the power to bring to trial all Suspects who committed or ordered the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, such as the following acts against persons or property protected under provisions of these Conventions, and which were committed during the period 17 April 1975 to 6 January 1979:

- unlawful deportation or transfer … of a civilian. 
Cambodia, Law on the Establishment of the ECCC, 2001, as amended in 2004, Articles 4–6.

Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence”. 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).

Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).

China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “mass deportation of non-combatants” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(18).

Colombia
According to Colombia’s Law on Internally Displaced Persons (1997), Colombians have the right not to be forcibly displaced. 
Colombia, Law on Internally Displaced Persons, 1997, Articles 2(7) and 10(5).

Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict, without military justification, deports, expels or carries out a forced transfer or displacement of the civilian population from its own territory”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 159.

Congo
Under the Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998), “forcible transfer of children” of the members of an ethnical, racial or religious group, as such, with intent to destroy the group, in whole or in part, constitutes a crime of genocide. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 1.

Moreover, under Act, “deportation or forcible transfer of population”, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, is a crime against humanity. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 6.

The Act defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Penal Code (1981), as amended in 1998, punishes
any person who, in time of war or occupation, and in violation of … international conventions, makes an attack on the physical integrity of civilian populations or on their intellectual or moral rights … [by carrying out] their displacement or their forced dispersion, their deportation. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Penal Code, 1981, as amended in 1998, Article 138(3); see also Article 137(3) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides, under the heading “War crimes against civilian population”: “Whoever in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, … orders deportation or transfers [of the civilian population] … shall be punished.” 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(1); see also Article 156 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended in 2006, states that a war crime is committed by whoever “in time of war, armed conflict or occupation … orders the resettlement [or] displacement” of the civilian population. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 158(1).

The Criminal Code also states that “[ordering] the forceful displacement of persons from areas where they lawfully reside” is a crime against humanity. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 157a.

The Criminal Code further states that “[intending] to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group … or [ordering] the forcible displacement of the population … or [ordering] the forcible transfer of children of the group to another group” is an act of genocide. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 156.

Cyprus
Cyprus’s Geneva Conventions Act (1966) punishes:
any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic, any grave breach or takes part, or assists or incites another person in the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. 
Cyprus, Geneva Conventions Act, 1966, Section 4(1).

Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes:
any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, punishes “whoever in wartime … groundlessly displaces the civil population of the occupied territory”. 
Czech Republic, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1999, Article 263(a)(2)(c); see also Article 259(1)(d) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended in 1980, provides: “The deportation, for whatever reason, of a detained or interned individual, without a prior sentence in accordance with the laws and customs of war having been pronounced, shall be punished.” 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice, 1972, as amended in 1980, Article 526.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 165
Crimes against humanity are grave violations of international humanitarian law committed against any civilian population before or during war.
Crimes against humanity are not necessarily linked to the state of war and can be committed not only between persons of different nationality, but even between subjects of the same State.
Article 166
The grave breaches listed hereafter, affecting, by action or omission, the persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, constitute crimes against humanity, repressed according to the provisions of the present Code, without prejudice to more severe penal provisions provided by the ordinary Penal Code:

5. Unlawful deportation, transfer or displacement, unlawful confinement of a civilian person protected by the Conventions or the Additional Protocols;

Article 167
The offences contained in the preceding article are punished with penal servitude for life.
If those contained in points 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 14 of the same article lead to the death or cause grave injury to the physical integrity or health of one or several persons, the perpetrators are liable to the death penalty.

Article 169
Any of the following acts, perpetrated as part of a widespread or systematic attack knowingly directed against the Republic or the civilian population, equally constitutes a crime against humanity and is punished by death, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war:

4. Deportation or forcible transfer of populations;

Article 192
In time of war or exceptional circumstances, compulsory work of civilians or deportation, for whatever reason, of a detained or interned individual, without a regular sentence in accordance with the laws and customs of war having been definitively pronounced, shall be punished with fifteen to twenty years of penal servitude.
If these acts were accompanied by ill-treatment, torture or followed by another breach, the perpetrator shall be punished by death. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Articles 165–167, 169 and 192.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

El Salvador
Under El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), “anyone who, during an international or a civil war, … deports to slave labour the civilian population in occupied territory” commits a crime. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, Article 362; see also Article 361 (forced displacement as part of a genocide campaign).

Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), persons responsible for the deportation or forced displacement of civilians commit a war crime. 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 97; see also § 89 (deportation as a crime against humanity) and § 90 (forcible transfer of children to another group as part of a genocide campaign).

Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) punishes
whosoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, organises, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions: … the compulsory movement or dispersion of the population, its systematic deportation, transfer. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 282(c); see also Article 281 (forcible transfer as a part of a genocide campaign).

Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 270.- War Crimes against the Civilian Population.
Whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation organizes, orders or engages in, against the civilian population and in violation of the rules of public international law and of international humanitarian conventions:

(c) the compulsory movement or dispersion of the population, its systematic deportation, transfer or detention in concentration camps or forced labour camps …

(l) … displacing … persons who, before the beginning of hostilities, were considered as stateless persons or refugees under the relevant international instruments or under the national legislation of the State of refuge or State of residence…

is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from five years to twenty-five years, or, in more serious cases, with life imprisonment or death. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 270.

The Criminal Code of 2004 repealed Ethiopia’s Penal Code of 1957.
Finland
Finland’s Revised Penal Code (1995) provides that when committed as a part of a genocide campaign, “forcibly moving children from one group to another” is a crime. 
Finland, Revised Penal Code, 1995, Chapter 11, Section 6.

Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “forcibly transfers or deports the population or parts thereof” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”. 
Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(12).
(emphasis in original)
France
France’s Penal Code (1994) punishes deportation as a crime against humanity. 
France, Penal Code, 1994, Article 212-1; see also Article 211-1 (forcible transfer of children as a part of a genocide campaign).

France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to international armed conflict: “Participating in … the deportation or transfer of all or part of the population of the occupied territory, within or outside this territory, is punishable by life imprisonment.” 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-26.

In its section on war crimes related to non-international armed conflict, the Penal Code also states: “Unless the security of the civilians or imperative military reasons so demand, ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict is punishable by life imprisonment.” 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-30.

Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “deportation or other unlawful transfer … of protected persons” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(2)(f); see also Article 407 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign) and Article 408 (deportation of the population as a crime against humanity).

Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict,
deports or forcibly transfers, by expulsion or other coercive acts, a person who is to be protected under international humanitarian law and lawfully present in an area to another State or another area in contravention of a general rule of international law. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 8(1)(6); see also Article 1, § 6(1)(5) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign) and Article 1, § 7(1)(4) (deportation or forcible transfer of the civilian population as a crime against humanity).

Hungary
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, the “settlement of the civilian population of the occupying power in the occupied territories, or resettlement of the population of the occupied territory” is a war crime. 
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 158(3)(a); see also Article 155(1)(e) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

India
India’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) provides:
If any person within or without India commits or attempts to commit, or abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions he shall be punished. 
India, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 3(1).

India’s Constitution (1950) provides: “All citizens shall have the right … (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India; (e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India”. 
India, Constitution, 1950, Article 19.

According to the Report on the Practice of India, this provision is reinforced during internal armed conflicts by constitutional provisions to the effect that freedom of movement may only be suspended where an emergency is proclaimed on account of an external aggression and not where an emergency is declared as the result of an internal armed rebellion. 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 5.5.

Iraq
Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies “[u]nlawful deportation or transfer” as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(1)(H).

Under the Law, “the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(I).

With regard to non-international armed conflict, the Law states that “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand” constitutes a war crime. 
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(4)(H).

Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).

The Act adds that any “minor breach” of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Articles 45 and 49 of the Geneva Convention IV, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 17, are also punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Israel
Under Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law (1950), deportation to forced labour or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territories is regarded as a war crime. 
Israel, Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 1950, Section 1(b); deportation is also considered as a crime against humanity and the forcible transfer of children to another group as a crime against the Jewish people (same section).

Italy
Italy’s Law on Genocide (1967) prohibits the displacement of national, ethnic, racial or religious groups. 
Italy, Law on Genocide, 1967, Article 2.

Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941), as amended in 2002, states:
Except when the fact constitutes a more serious offence, the serviceman who, for reasons associated with the war, is guilty of … illegal transfers or other conduct prohibited by international conventions … against war prisoners, civilians or other persons protected by international conventions, is punished with two to five years military imprisonment.  
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, as amended on 31 January 2002, Article 185-bis.

Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “[T]he deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory”. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(15).

Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan’s Penal Code (1997) provides that the deportation of the civilian population is a crime. 
Kazakhstan, Penal Code, 1997, Article 159; see also Article 160 (forcible transfer of children as a part of a genocide campaign).

Kenya
Kenya’s Geneva Conventions Act (1968) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or outside Kenya commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Kenya, Geneva Conventions Act, 1968, Section 3(1).

Latvia
Under Latvia’s Criminal Code (1998), deportation is a violation of the provisions and customs regarding the conduct of war forbidden by international agreements and constitutes a war crime. 
Latvia, Criminal Code, 1998, Section 74; see also Section 71 (deliver children on a compulsory basis from one group of people into another as a part of a genocide campaign).

Lebanon
Under the Draft Amendments to the Code of Military Justice (1997) of Lebanon, “the displacement or transfer of the whole or part of the inhabitants of occupied territories, within as well as outside the occupied territories”, is a war crime. 
Lebanon, Draft Amendments to the Code of Military Justice, 1997, Article 146(15).

Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, “deportation, in time of war, during an international armed conflict or under the conditions of occupation or annexation, of civilians from the occupied or annexed territory to the territory of the country which effects the occupation or annexation or to a third country” is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 334.

Luxembourg
Under Luxembourg’s Law on the Repression of War Crimes (1947), every measure which leads to the deportation or expatriation, whatever the grounds, of persons who were not lawfully detained or interned is punishable. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Repression of War Crimes, 1947, Article 2(5).

Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985) states that the following grave breaches constitute crimes under international law: “deportation of all persons protected by the Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war” and “the transfer of persons protected by the same Convention”. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave breaches, 1985, Article 1(6)and (7).

Malawi
Malawi’s Geneva Conventions Act (1967) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or without Malawi commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Malawi, Geneva Conventions Act, 1967, Section 4(1).

Malaysia
Malaysia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962) punishes “any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside the Federation, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any of the … [1949 Geneva] conventions”. 
Malaysia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, Section 3(1).

Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “deportation or unlawful transfer” of a population constitutes a war crime. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(g) and (i)(8); see also Article 29(d) (deportation or illegal transfer of a population as a crime against humanity) and Article 30(e) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Mauritius
The Geneva Conventions Act (1970) of Mauritius punishes “any person who in Mauritius or elsewhere commits, or is an accomplice in the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Mauritius, Geneva Conventions Act, 1970, Section 3(1).

Mexico
Mexico’s Penal Code (1931), as amended in 2000, punishes the forcible transfer of children under the age of 16 years to another group, when committed as a part of a genocide campaign. 
Mexico, Penal Code, 1931, as amended in 2000, Article 149 bis.

Netherlands
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “deportation of civilians” in its list of war crimes. 
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.

Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “unlawful deportation or transfer” and “the deportation or transfer of all or part of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” are crimes, when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(1)(g), 5(2)(d)(i) and 5(5)(d); see also Article 3(1)(e) (forcible transfer of children of a group to another group as part of a genocide campaign) and Article 4(d) (deportation or forcible transfer of population as a crime against humanity).

Under the Act, “giving instructions for the transfer of the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict, other than on account of the safety of the citizens or where imperatively demanded by the circumstances of the conflict” constitutes a crime in non-international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 6(3)(i).

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:
Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).

Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), genocide includes the crimes defined in Article 6(e) of the 1998 ICC Statute, crimes against humanity include the crimes defined in Article 7(1)(d) of the Statute, and war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(a)(vii), (b)(viii) and (e)(viii) of the Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Sections 9(2), 10(2) and 11(2).

Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) provides that deportation and illegal transfer is a punishable offence. 
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 58.

Nicaragua’s Draft Penal Code (1999) provides that displacement of children from one group to another group as a part of a genocide campaign is punishable. 
Nicaragua, Draft Penal Code, 1999, Article 444(1).

Niger
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, “deportation, transfer or unlawful displacement” of persons protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions or their Additional Protocols of 1977 constitutes a war crime. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(6); see also Article 208.2 (deportation as a crime against humanity) and Article 208.1 (forcible transfer of children as part of a genocide campaign).

Nigeria
Nigeria’s Geneva Conventions Act (1960) punishes any person who “whether in or outside the Federation, … whatever his nationality, commits, or aids, abets or procures any other person to commit any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Nigeria, Geneva Conventions Act, 1960, Section 3(1).

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 … [and in] the two additional protocols to these Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108.

Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states: “Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … in violation of international law deports or forcibly transfers a protected person from an area in which the person is lawfully present.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103(h).

The Penal Code further states: “A protected person is a person who does not take, or who no longer takes, active part in hostilities, or who is otherwise protected under international law.” 
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 103.

Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea’s Geneva Conventions Act (1976) punishes any “person who, in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions”. 
Papua New Guinea, Geneva Conventions Act, 1976, Section 7(2).

Paraguay
Paraguay’s Penal Code (1997) punishes “anyone who, in violation of the international laws of war, armed conflict or military occupation, commits against the civilian population … acts of … deportation”. 
Paraguay, Penal Code, 1997, Article 320; see also Article 319 (forcible transfer of children and adults to another group or places other than their habitual residence as a part of a genocide campaign).

Peru
Peru’s Law on Internal Displacement (2004) states:
7.2 The prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement:
a) based on policies whose object or result is the alteration of the ethnic, religious, racial, social or political composition and apartheid … ;
b) in situations of armed conflict, unless the security of the civilian population involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

d) when it is used as collective punishment.
7.3 Displacements shall last no longer than required by the circumstances. 
Peru, Law on Internal Displacement, 2004, Article 7.2.(a), (b) and (d) and 7.3.

The Law also states:
Prior to any decision requiring the displacement of persons, the authorities concerned shall ensure that all feasible alternatives are explored in order to avoid displacement altogether. When no alternatives exist, all measures shall be taken to minimize displacement and its adverse effects. 
Peru, Law on Internal Displacement, 2004, Article 8.1.

Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:
Any member of the military or police who in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict:

6. Deports or forcefully transfers a person who is protected by international humanitarian law and lawfully present in a territory, thereby displacing the person to another State or territory through expulsion or other coercive measures in violation of the general norms of international humanitarian law, shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than five and no more than ten years. 
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 90(6).

This article is no longer in force. Along with certain other articles in this legislation, it was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (en banc decision for case file No. 0012-2006-PI-TC, 8 January 2007) because it does not stipulate a crime committed in the line of duty that would fall under the jurisdiction of a military court pursuant to Article 173 of Peru’s Constitution.
Philippines
Under the War Crimes Trial Executive Order (1947) of the Philippines, applicable to acts committed during the Second World War, “violations of the laws or customs of war … [such as] deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory” are war crimes. 
Philippines, War Crimes Trial Executive Order, 1947, Part II(b)(2).

The Executive Order adds that “deportation [of] … civilian populations before or during the [Second World War] … whether or not in violation of the local laws” constitutes a war crime. 
Philippines, War Crimes Trial Executive Order, 1947, Part II(b)(3).

The Philippines’ Republic Act No. 8371 (1997) on indigenous cultural communities and indigenous people states:
Rights during Armed Conflict.- ICCs/IPs [Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous People] have the right to special protection and security in periods of armed conflict. The State shall observe international standards, in particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, for the protection of civilian populations in circumstances of emergency and armed conflict, and shall not recruit members of the ICCs/IPs against their will into armed forces, and in particular, for the use against other ICCs/IPs; not recruit children of ICCs/IPs into the armed forces under any circumstance; nor force indigenous individuals to abandon their lands, territories and means of subsistence, or relocate them in special centers for military purposes under any discriminatory condition. 
Philippines, Republic Act No. 8371, 1997, Section 22.

Poland
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) punishes any person who, in violation of international law, carries out transfers of persons hors de combat. 
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 124; see also Article 118(2) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Portugal
Portugal’s Penal Code (1996) punishes “anyone who, in violation of international law (humanitarian or common), in times of war, armed conflict or occupation, carries out … deportation”. 
Portugal, Penal Code, 1996, Article 241.

Republic of Korea
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including genocide by “[f]orcibly transferring children of the group to another group”; “[d]eportation or forcible transfer of a person lawfully present in an area to another State or location in violation of international law” as crimes against humanity; and the war crimes of “[d]eportation or forcible transfer of a person, who is to be protected under international humanitarian law, to another State or location in violation of international law”, in both international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Articles 8(2)(4), 9(2)(3), and 10(3)(1).

Republic of Moldova
Under the Republic of Moldova’s Penal Code (2002), deportation of protected persons is an offence. 
Republic of Moldova, Penal Code, 2002, Article 137(2)(c); see also Article 135(d) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Romania
Romania’s Penal Code (1968) punishes the deportation of all persons in the hands of the adverse party. 
Romania, Penal Code, 1968, Article 358(c); see also Law on the Punishment of War Criminals, 1945, Article 1(c) (deportation of political or racial adversaries).

Russian Federation
Under the Russian Federation’s Criminal Code (1996), “deportation of the civilian population” is a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Russian Federation, Criminal Code, 1996, Article 356(1); see also Article 357 (forcible transfer of children as a part of a genocide campaign).

Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 8
A war crime is one of the following acts, committed during armed conflicts against persons or property protected under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and its Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977:

7° forced displacement, transfer or deportation of the civilian population, or its systematic sending to and detention in concentration camps or forced labour camps;

13° the transfer of the population, or parts of it, by a party to the conflict into the occupied territory, its deportation within or outside the occupied territory, without taking its interests into account;

Article: 9
Shall be punished by one of the following penalties any person having committed one of the war crimes provided for in Article 8 of this law:

2° imprisonment for ten (10) to twenty (20) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 6°, 7°, 8°, 10° or 12° of Article 8 of this law;
3° imprisonment for five (5) to ten (10) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 4°, 5°, 13°, 14° or 15° of Article 8 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–9.

Senegal
Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states:
[a)] Any of the following acts constitutes a war crime if it concerns members of the armed forces, the wounded, sick or shipwrecked, prisoners of war or civilians or objects protected by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949:

6. unlawful deportation or transfer … ;

b) [O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

7. … the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.

d) …
Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts [also constitute war crimes]:

8. ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to an armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(a)(6), (b)(7) and (d)(8); see also Article 431-1(5) (genocide) and Article 431-2(4) (crimes against humanity).

Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that forcibly transferring children of one group to another “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”, constitutes an act of genocide. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 370.

The Criminal Code also states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing the “deportation or relocation” of the civilian population, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372.

Seychelles
The Geneva Conventions Act (1985) of the Seychelles punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Seychelles, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Seychelles, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, Section 3(1).

Singapore
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act (1973) punishes “any person, whatever his citizenship or nationality, who, whether in or outside Singapore, commits, aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any such grave breach of any [1949 Geneva] Convention”. 
Singapore, Geneva Conventions Act, 1973, Section 3(1).

Slovakia
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, punishes “whoever in wartime … groundlessly displaces the civil population of the occupied territory”. 
Slovakia, Criminal Code , 1961, as amended, Article 263(a)(2)(c); see also Article 259(1)(c) (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Slovenia
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides, under the heading “War Crimes against Civil Population”, that “whoever, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation and in violation of international law, orders or commits against the civil population, the following criminal offences … deportation or displacement” shall be punished. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(1); see also Article 373 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including genocide by “forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”, and “deportation or forcible transfer of population” as a crime against humanity, as well as the war crimes of “unlawful deportation or transfer” of persons protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and “the deportation or transfer [by an occupying power] of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” in international armed conflicts and “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand” in non-international armed conflicts. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 1, § (e), Part 2, § 1(d) and Part 3, §§ (a)(vii), (b)(viii) and (e)(viii).

Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) and Penal Code (1995) punish anyone who deports or forcibly transfers protected persons. 
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 77(6); Penal Code, 1995, Article 611(4); see also Article 607(4) (forcible transfer to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states:
Any person who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict is punished with 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to a penalty for the results of such acts:

4. Deporting or forcibly transferring … protected persons. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 611(4).

Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s Geneva Conventions Act (2006) includes the following grave breach as an indictable offence: “unlawful deportation or transfer”. 
Sri Lanka, Geneva Conventions Act, 2006, Schedule IV: Article 146.

Sudan
Sudan’s Armed Forces Act (2007) provides:
(2) Subject to provisions of the Criminal Act of 1991, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, whoever commits, within the framework of a methodical direct and widespread attack, directed against civilians, any of the following acts:

(b) transfer, or forcefully deport the populace [from] their areas, without a justification required by security of the population or persistent military necessity. 
Sudan, Armed Forces Act, 2007, Article 153(2).

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), as amended in 2009, states:
Any person who, with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, [commits any of the following acts,] is to be punished with life imprisonment, 10 years’ imprisonment or less:

c. forcibly transferring children of one group to another group or having children of one group forcibly transferred to another group [by other persons]. 
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, as amended in 2009, Article 264(c).

Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes:
1) Wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in an international or non-international armed conflict … [such as] the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory …
2) Wilful breaches of norms of international humanitarian law committed in an international or non-international armed conflict against persons hors de combat or having no means of defence … consisting of:

f) deportation or unlawful transfer. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1) and (2); see also Article 398 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Trinidad and Tobago
Under Trinidad and Tobago’s Draft ICC Act (1999), it is a punishable offence to commit genocide as defined in Article 6(e) of the 1998 ICC Statute, a crime against humanity as defined in Article 7(1)(d) of the Statute, and a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(a)(vii), (b)(viii) and (e)(viii) of the Statute. 
Trinidad and Tobago, Draft ICC Act, 1999, Section 5(1)(a).

Turkey
Under Turkey’s Criminal Code (2004), transferring minors of a group to another group constitutes genocide when committed “under a plan against members of national, racial or religious groups with the intention of destroying the complete or part of the group”. 
Turkey, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 76(e).

Uganda
Uganda’s Geneva Conventions Act (1964) punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether within or without Uganda commits or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of any grave breach of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions”. 
Uganda, Geneva Conventions Act, 1964, Section 1(1).

Ukraine
Under Ukraine’s Criminal Code (2001), deportation of the civilian population to forced labour is an offence. 
Ukraine, Criminal Code, 2001, Article 438(1); see also Article 442 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes:
any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of any of the [1949 Geneva] conventions or of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).

Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit genocide as defined in Article 6(e) of the 1998 ICC Statute, a crime against humanity as defined in Article 7(1)(d) of the Statute, and a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(a)(vii), (b)(viii) and (e)(viii) of the Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

United States of America
The US Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region I (1945) established military commissions which had jurisdiction over offences such as “deportation to slave labour or for any other illegal purpose, of civilians of or in occupied territory”. 
United States, Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region I, 1945, Regulation 5.

The US Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region II (1945) established military commissions which had jurisdiction over offences such as “deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilians of or in occupied territory”. 
United States, Regulations Governing the Trials of Accused War Criminals in the Pacific Region II, 1945, Regulation 2(b).

Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions are war crimes. 
United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c)(1).

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:

7. Unlawful deportation or transfer …

16. … the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; or ordering any other displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the armed conflict unless the security of the affected civilians or persons so requires or for imperative military reasons. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2, 26.3.7 and 26.3.16.

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code (1994) punishes the deportation of the civilian population to forced labour or for any other purpose. 
Uzbekistan, Criminal Code, 1994, Article 152; see also Article 153 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Vanuatu
Vanuatu’s Geneva Conventions Act (1982) provides:
Any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions that would, if committed in Vanuatu, be an offence under any provision of the Penal Code Act Cap. 135 or any other law shall be an offence under such provision of the Penal Code or any other law if committed outside Vanuatu. 
Vanuatu, Geneva Conventions Act, 1982, Section 4(1).

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, provides, under the heading “War crimes against civilian population”:
Any person who orders, in violation of the rules of international law during a war, an armed conflict or occupation, … unlawful transfer of people to concentration camps [of the civilian population] … shall be punished. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(3); see also Article 141 (forcible transfer of children to another group as a part of a genocide campaign).

Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act (1945), “forced deportation or removal to concentration camps, or interning, or of forced labour of the population of Yugoslavia” is a war crime.  
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Criminal Offences against the Nation and State Act, 1945, Article 3(3).

Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of [any of the 1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).

Back to top
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In 2007, in the Janković case, the Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that the following elements constituted “forcible transfer of population”:
i) forcible transfer of individuals, by moving them or by [employing] other coercive actions, out of the area where they legally reside to other locations within the state border without any basis under international law and ii) the intention of the perpetrator to forcibly remove individuals, while the intention does not necessarily have to refer to permanent transfer. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Janković case, Judgment, 23 October 2007, p. 14.

Canada
In the Rudolph and Minister of Employment and Immigration case in 1992, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal upheld an order for the removal from Canada of the accused, a German national who, during the Second World War, had requested and supervised the deportation and use of foreign civilians as slave labourers in the production of V-2 rockets, on the ground that he had committed outside Canada an act that constituted a war crime. 
Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Rudolph and Minister of Employment and Immigration case, Judgment, 1 May 1992.

China
In the Takashi Sakai case in 1946, the War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defence of China found the accused guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity inasmuch as he had incited or permitted his subordinates to commit, inter alia, acts of deportation of civilians. 
China, War Crimes Military Tribunal of the Ministry of National Defence, Takashi Sakai case, Judgment, 29 August 1946.

Colombia
In analysing the constitutionality of the 1977 Additional Protocol II in 1995, Colombia’s Constitutional Court found in relation to the rules on the protection of civilians and persons hors de combat:
According to the statistics compiled by the Colombian Episcopacy, more than half a million Colombians have been displaced from their homes as a result of the violence … The principal cause of displacement involves violations of international humanitarian law associated with the armed conflict. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-225/95, Constitutional revision of Additional Protocol II and the Law 171 of 16 December 1994 implementing this protocol, Judgment, 18 May 1995.

France
In its judgment in the Roechling case in 1948, the General Tribunal at Rastadt (French Zone of Occupation in Germany) found the principal accused, Hermann Roechling, the proprietor and active head of an industrial and commercial trust, guilty of war crimes for having participated in a plan of deportation to forced labour of civilian inhabitants of occupied territories and prisoners of war, in the course of which they were ill-treated and killed. The Court found that the participation of the accused in the programme of forced labour rendered him guilty of the offence of deportation of civilians and prisoners of war. 
France, General Tribunal at Rastadt of the Military Government for the French Zone of Occupation in Germany, Roechling case, 30 June 1948.

Iraq
In its judgment in the Al-Anfal case in 2007, the Iraqi High Tribunal listed the following elements for the crime of forced displacement:
1. The perpetrator must order the dislocation of civil inhabitants.
2. The order should not have vindication as to provide security for concerned civilians or military necessities.
3. The perpetrator must be willing to engender such dislocation via issuing orders.
4. The conduct must be issued within a national armed dispute context and correlated with it.
5. The perpetrator must be aware of factual circumstances which prove the existence of armed conflict. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Al-Anfal case, Judgment, 24 June 2007, p. 583; see also p. 683, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/anfal/opinion.asp (last accessed on 1 April 2010).

The Tribunal further stated:
The requirements and elements to prove the crime of dislocating civil inhabitants, as a crime of war, are: issuing orders of dislocating civilians, as long as this/these order(s) are issued due to national armed conflict, whereas the safety of civilians or other military necessities are not taken into consideration. The perpetrator must be willing to engender such dislocation via issuing orders, as well as admitting that such dislocation occurred with no minimum choice …

Issuing an order for displacing the civilian residents should be related to the conflict, unless it was for the safety of the involved civilians or for urgent military reasons … and the crime perpetrator should be able to cause this displacement through issuing this order.
The element to prove that this crime is a war crime, it is a proof that the order of displacement was implemented without any choices. 
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Al-Anfal case, Judgment, 24 June 2007, pp. 583 and 683, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/anfal/opinion.asp (last accessed on 1 April 2010).

Israel
In its judgment in the Eichmann case in 1961, Israel’s District Court of Jerusalem held that the following behaviour caused serious bodily or mental harm and, therefore, amounted to a violation of Israel’s Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law:
the enslavement, starvation, deportation and persecution … and … [the] detention [of Jewish people] in ghettos, transit camps and concentration camps in conditions which were designed to cause their degradation, deprivation of their rights as human beings and to suppress them and cause them inhumane suffering and torture. 
Israel, District Court of Jerusalem, Eichmann case, Judgment, 12 December 1961.

In its judgment in the Abu Awad case in 1979, Israel’s High Court held that Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV was not meant to apply to the deportation of selected individuals for reasons of public order and security. It only prohibits Nazi-style mass deportations. 
Israel, High Court, Abu Awad case, Judgment, 12 November 1979.

In its judgment in the Kawasme case in 1980, Israel’s High Court held:
All of Article 49 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] … does not form part of customary international law, and therefore the deportation orders [against the mayors of Hebron and Halhul] did not contravene the domestic law of the State of Israel … , according to which an Israeli court reaches its decision.
The Court also stated that Article 49 was not meant to apply to the deportation of selected individuals, but only to Nazi-style mass deportation. In a dissenting opinion in the same case, Justice Cohn underlined that “the beginning of Article 49 … contains a nucleus of the customary law of nations, which has applied all over the world from time immemorial”. According to his opinion, the prohibition contained in Article 49 applies to all inhabitants of an area and is an absolute one, so that the cause for deportation – whether military or security – is irrelevant. 
Israel, High Court, Kawasme case, Judgment, 4 December 1980.

In its judgment in the Nazal case in 1985, Israel’s High Court held that Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV did not form part of customary international law and that therefore deportation orders against individual citizens did not contravene the domestic law of Israel. President Shamgar ruled that Article 49 was not applicable to the deportation of Jordanian subjects to Jordan and that a deportation order under Regulation 112 of the Defence (Emergency) Regulations of 1945 can be issued only if the Military Commander is of the opinion that such an order is necessary or expedient for securing public peace, the protection of the region, the maintenance of public order, or the suppression of mutiny, rebellion or riot. 
Israel, High Court, Nazal case, Judgment, 29 September 1985.

In its judgment in the Affo and Others case in 1988, a majority of four judges of Israel’s High Court stated that deportations of individuals were not incompatible with Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, the provision only barring Nazi-style mass deportations. However, in a dissenting opinion in the same case, Justice Bach held that deportations of individuals from occupied territories to a location outside the boundaries of those territories violate Article 49. Nevertheless, Article 49 being only conventional and not customary international law, it does not form part of Israeli law that can be directly invoked before Israeli courts. Justice Bach stated:
The language of Article 49 is unequivocal and explicit. The combination of the words “Individual or mass forcible transfers as well as deportations” in conjunction with the phrase “regardless of their motive” … admits no room to doubt that the Article applies not only to mass deportations but to the deportation of individuals as well and that the prohibition was intended to be total, sweeping and unconditional – “regardless of their motive”. 
Israel, High Court, Affo and Others case, Judgment, 10 April 1988.

In its judgment in the Ajuri case in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
13. Is the military commander of a territory under belligerent occupation competent to determine that a resident of the territory shall be removed from his place of residence and assigned to another place of residence in that territory? It was argued before us that the military commander does not have that authority, if only for the reason that this is a forcible transfer and deportation that are prohibited under international law (article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Our premise is that in order to answer the question of the military commander’s authority, it is insufficient to determine merely that the Amending Order (or any other order of the commander of the territory) gives the military commander the authority to assign the place of residence of a resident of the territory. The reason for this is that the authority of the military commander to enact the Amending Order derives from the laws of belligerent occupation. They are the source of his authority, and his power will be determined accordingly. I discussed this in one case, where I said:
“From a legal viewpoint the source for the authority and the power of the military commander in a territory subject to belligerent occupation is in the rules of public international law relating to belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica), and which constitute a part of the laws of war” (HCJ 393/82 Almashulia v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria, at p. 793).
In this respect, I would like to make the following two remarks: first, all the parties before us assumed that in the circumstances currently prevailing in the territory under the control of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], the laws of international law concerning belligerent occupation apply (see, in this regard, HCJ 102/82 Zemel v. Minister of Defence, at p. 373; HCJ 574/82 El Nawar v. Minister of Defence; HCJ 615/85 Abu Satiha v. IDF Commander); second, the rules of international law that apply in the territory are the customary laws (such as the appendix to the (Fourth) Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907, which is commonly regarded as customary law; hereafter – the Fourth Hague Convention). With regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, counsel for the Respondent reargued before us the position of the State of Israel that this convention – which in his opinion does not reflect customary law – does not apply to Judaea and Samaria. Notwithstanding, Mr Nitzan told us – in accordance with the long established practice of the Government of Israel (see M. Shamgar, “The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories”, 1 Isr. Y. H. R. 1971, 262) – that the Government of Israel decided to act in accordance with the humanitarian parts of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In view of this declaration, we do not need to examine the legal arguments concerning this matter, which are not simple, and we may leave these to be decided at a later date. It follows that for the purpose of the petitions before us we are assuming that humanitarian international law – as reflected in the Fourth Geneva Convention (including article 78) and certainly the Fourth Hague Convention – applies in our case. We should add that alongside the rules of international law that apply in our case, the fundamental principles of Israeli administrative law, such as the rules of natural justice, also apply. Indeed, every Israeli soldier carries in his pack both the rules of international law and also the basic principles of Israeli administrative law that are relevant to the issue. Therefore the question remains: is the military commander competent under the rules of belligerent occupation to determine provisions regarding the forcible assigned residence of a person from his place of residence to another place in the territory under his control?
14. The fundamental premise is that the displacement of a person from his place of residence and his forcible assignment to another place seriously harms his dignity, his liberty and his property. A person’s home is not merely a roof over his head, but it is also a means for the physical and social location of a person, his private life and his social relationships (see M. Stavropoulou, “The Right not to be Displaced”, 9 Am. U. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y, 1994, at pp. 689, 717). Several basic human rights are harmed as a result of an involuntary displacement of a person from his home and his residence being assigned to another place, even if this assigned residence does not involve him crossing an international border (see F. M. Deng, Internally Displaced Persons: Compilation and Analysis of Legal Norms, 1998, 14). These human rights derive in part from the internal law of the various countries, and are in part enshrined in the norms of international law.
15. The rights of a person to his dignity, his liberty and his property are not absolute rights. They are relative rights. They may be restricted in order to uphold the rights of others, or the goals of society. Indeed, human rights are not the rights of a person on a desert island. They are the rights of a person as a part of society. Therefore they may be restricted in order to uphold similar rights of other members of society. They may be restricted in order to further proper social goals which will in turn further human rights themselves. Indeed, human rights and the restriction thereof derive from a common source, which concerns the right of a person in a democracy.
16. The extent of the restriction on human rights as a result of the forcible assignment of a person’s residence from one place to another varies in accordance with the reasons that underlie the assigned residence. Assigned residence caused by combat activities (whether because of an international dispute or because of a civil war) cannot be compared to assigned residence caused by a disaster (whether natural or of human origin) (see R. Cohen and F. M. Deng, Masses in Flight: the Global Crisis of Internal Displacement, 1998). In the case before us, we are concerned with the assigned residence of a person from his place of residence to another place in the same territory for security reasons in an area subject to belligerent occupation. The extent of the permitted restriction on human rights is determined, therefore, by the humanitarian laws contained in the laws concerning armed conflict (see D. Fleck ed., The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, 1995). These laws are mainly enshrined in the Fourth Hague Convention and the Fourth Geneva Convention. We will now turn to these laws.
17. We were referred to various provisions in the Fourth Hague Convention (mainly article 43) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (mainly articles 49 and 78). In our opinion, the case before us is governed entirely by the provisions of article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
“Article 78
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.
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.
Protected persons made subject to assigned residence and thus required to leave their homes shall enjoy the full benefit of Article 39 of the present Convention.”
This provision concerns assigned residence. It constitutes a special provision of law (lex specialis) to which we must refer and on the basis of which we must determine the legal problems before us. Whatever is prohibited thereunder is forbidden even if a general provision may prima facie be interpreted as allowing it, and what is permitted thereunder is allowed even if a general provision may prima facie be interpreted as prohibiting it (see J. Stone, No Place, No Law in the Middle East 1969, at p. 17). Indeed, a study of the Amending Order itself and the individual orders made thereunder shows that the maker of the Order took account of the provisions of article 78 of the Convention, and acted accordingly when he made the Amending Order and the individual orders. The Respondent did not seek, therefore, to make a forcible transfer or to deport any of the residents of the territory. The Respondent acted within the framework of “assigned residence” (according to the provisions of article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention). Therefore we did not see any reason to examine the scope of application of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits a forcible transfer or a deportation. In any event, we see no need to consider the criticism that the petitioners raised with regard to the ruling of this court, as reflected in several decisions, the main one being HCJ 785/87 Abed El-Apu v. IDF Commander in West Bank, with regard to the interpretation of article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. We can leave this matter to be decided at a later date.
18. Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention does not deal with a forcible transfer or deportation. It provides a comprehensive and full arrangement with regard to all aspects of assigned residence and internment of protected persons. This provision integrates with several other provisions in the Fourth Geneva Convention (arts. 41, 42 and 43) that also discuss internment and assigned residence. When the place of residence of a protected person is assigned from one place to another under the provisions of art. 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it is a lawful act of the military commander, and it does not constitute a violation of human rights protected by humanitarian international law. Indeed, art. 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention constitutes both a source for the protection of the right of a person whose residence is being assigned and also a source for the possibility of restricting this right. This can be seen, inter alia, in the provisions of art. 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that determines that the measures stipulated therein are the measures that the occupying power (i.e., the military commander) may “at most” carry out. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Ajuri case, Judgment, 3 September 2002, §§ 13–18.

In its judgment in the Adris case in 2003, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
1. Petitioner, a resident of Hebron, was held in administrative detention for one month due to the danger he poses to the security of the State. Toward the end of his detention period, on October 14 2003, a residence assignment order was issued against him, effective for two years (hereinafter: “the order”), according to which he was required to live in the Gaza Strip. An appeal filed by petitioner to the appeals committee was rejected.

2. In the petition before us, petitioner’s counsel, Yunis Tamim adv., refrained from asking us to view the intelligence information upon which the order was issued, and he is thus to be seen as agreeing with the conclusion of the appeals committee regarding the reliability of the information. However, according to the arguments of petitioner’s counsel, the issuance of a residence assignment order contradicts Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Conference, which prohibits deportation of residents of an occupied area. In addition, he argues that the objective of the order is not prevention of harm to the security of the State, but rather punishment, as it was possible to prevent the harm to the security of the State by using the means of administrative detention.
3. Indeed, the assignment of a person’s place of residence is a severe step. However, as was clarified in HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, 56(6) PD 352 (hereinafter: “HCJ Ajuri”), Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention allows taking that step, as, in general, it is less severe than detention. Although the military commander is permitted to employ that means only if there is clear administrative evidence, according to which if that step is not taken, “there is a reasonable possibility that [the person against whom the order is issued] will pose real danger to the security of the area” (HCJ Ajuri, at p. 372), the military commander has wide discretion, and he can choose, from among the preventative means at his disposal, the most effective means for preventing the danger to the security of the State. Furthermore, the military commander is also permitted, for the purpose of choosing that means, to take into account considerations of public deterrence, on the condition that the person himself poses a danger to the security of the State. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Adris case, Judgment, 29 October 2003, §§ 1–3.

In its judgment in the Diyouk case in 2003, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
3. The step of assignment of place of residence naturally involves difficulties for the person against whom it is taken. However, it is a step which is permissible, pursuant to the provisions of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, in circumstances in which there is clear administrative evidence that if that person’s place of residence is not assigned, real danger will be posed to the security of the area (see HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, 56(6) PD 352; hereinafter: Ajuri). The decision in petitioner’s case was based upon updated intelligence information, according to which release of petitioner in the Judea and Samaria area would be likely to cause real danger to the public peace. In these circumstances, the decision upon assignment of place of residence was within the bounds of the permissible, according to the ruling in Ajuri.
4. As mentioned above, petitioner argued before us that assigning residence involves a severer harm to him than the alternative of administrative detention. In light of that, petitioner is of the opinion that the military commander had a duty to choose the alternative of continued administrative detention. That argument cannot be accepted. The military commander’s decision to assign petitioner’s residence, instead of continuing his detention, was based upon recent intelligence information, according to which petitioner’s continued presence in administrative detention was likely to cause a greater risk to the security of the public than the alternative of assignment of residence. In these circumstances, considerations of public security justify the preference of assignment of residence over administrative detention.
Furthermore, the military commander’s discretion regarding the choice between the alternative means of detention and assignment of residence was discussed in the aforementioned Ajuri judgment, in which the Court ruled:
May the military commander, when making a decision about assigned residence, take into account considerations of deterring the public? As we have seen, what underlies the measure of assigned residence is the danger presented by the person himself if his place of residence is not assigned, and deterring that person himself by assigning his place of residence. The military commander is not, therefore, permitted to adopt a measure of assigned residence merely as a general deterrent. Notwithstanding, when assigning a place of residence is justified because a person is dangerous, and the question is merely whether to exercise this authority, there is no defect in the military commander taking into account considerations of deterring others. Thus, for example, this consideration may be taken into account in choosing between detention and assigned residence. This approach of ours strikes a proper balance between the essential condition that the person himself presents a danger – which assigned residence is designed to prevent – and the essential need to protect the security of the area. It is very much in line with the approach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which regards assigned residence as a legitimate mechanism for protecting the security of the territory. It is required by the harsh reality in which the State of Israel and the area are situated, in that they are exposed to an inhuman phenomenon of “human bombs” that is engulfing the area (ibid, at p. 1032).
The conclusion is that in the choice between administrative detention and assignment of residence, the commander of the area is permitted to take into account considerations of public deterrence, upon the condition that he has administrative evidence of a real danger to the security of the area posed by the person against whom the order is directed. This is so, sevenfold, when the military commander’s choice is based on the greater danger to the public posed by the continued administrative detention of a person, compared to the assignment of his residence. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Diyouk case, Judgment, 12 November 2003, §§ 3–4.

In its judgment in the Sualameh case in 2003, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
3. The security provisions order authorizes the military commander to issue an order ordering that a person be subjected to special supervision, including assignment of his residence to a certain place, if that is necessary due to imperative security reasons (see sections 84a and 86(a) and (b)(1) of the security provisions order). The application of the security provisions order, according to its original wording, was limited to the Judea and Samaria area, but amendment 84 of the order of August 1 2002 expanded its application to include the Gaza Strip area as well. Section 86(e) of the security provisions order establishes a right to appeal an assignment order that has been issued, before an appeals committee, appointed by the President of the Military Appeals Court (hereinafter: “the appeals committee” or “the committee”), and section 86(13) further determines that after the appeals committee has rejected an appeal of an assignment order, it must reexamine its validity at least once every six months, whether an additional appeal of the order has been submitted or not.
In HCJ 7015/02 Ajuri v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank, 56(6) PD 352 (hereinafter: “Ajuri”), Barak, P. ruled, for the Supreme Court, that the security provisions order is in line with the rules of International Humanitarian Law, as reflected in the Fourth Geneva Convention, including Article 78 of that convention, and the Fourth Hague Convention. The Supreme Court further ruled that the rules of International Humanitarian Law apply to the Judea and Samaria area in light of both its status as territory being held in belligerent occupation and the fundamental principles of Israeli administrative law, emphasizing that according to the comprehensive arrangement in Article 78 of the Geneva Convention, a person protected by the Convention can be moved from place to place in an area subject to belligerent occupation, for security reasons and subject to the right of appeal and the reexamination of the order every six months. Due to the rule determined in Ajuri, according to which the security provisions order is in line with the rules of International Humanitarian Law, there is no basis for the argument raised in some of the petitions, according to which the assignment orders were issued ultra vires and must be annulled. An additional argument raised in some of the petitions is the argument that the Gaza Strip area and the Judea and Samaria area are two separate areas and that therefore, expanding the security provisions order to the Gaza Strip area is void, and the assignment orders are to be seen as deportation orders. This argument was already discussed and rejected in Ajuri, where Barak, P. ruled that the Judea and Samaria area and the Gaza area are to be seen as one territorial unit for the purposes of assignment orders issued pursuant to the security provisions order.
4. An additional general argument raised in the petitions is that the orders assigning residence to the Gaza Strip area were issued for foreign policy and political reasons, not due to security considerations of the military commander. Almost all of the petitioners further argued that in their eyes, continued administrative detention is preferable to assignment of residence to the Gaza Strip, and that in any case, the assignment of their residence should have been within the Judea and Samaria area, as the harm to their liberty and their rights caused by such an assignment is lesser, and leaves them in their natural area of residence, in which they can be visited by their families.
At the request of petitioners, we viewed classified material regarding each of them, and in contrast to the arguments raised, we are of the opinion that there are security considerations of the first degree regarding them which justify the orders that were issued. It should be emphasized that the cases before us, unlike the cases discussed in Ajuri, do not relate to assignment of the residences of family members of those active in terrorist organizations, who assisted them. The petitioners before us are among the hard core of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations active in the Judea and Samaria area, and the security risk posed by them, should they be released, is real and palpable. In Ajuri, the Supreme Court emphasized that the objective of the assignment of residence is not punishment, and that the assignment is intended to prevent the person whose residence has been assigned from continuing to constitute a security risk. The Court further ruled in Ajuri that the military commander, when deciding upon assignment of residence, is not restricted to “military” considerations only, and that the kinds of considerations that he is permitted to take into account are wider, and include security reasons, as stated in Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In the framework of such considerations, the military commander is permitted to take into account considerations of public deterrence as well, and that consideration is a relevant one which is likely to be taken into account when the military commander is choosing between administrative detention and assignment of residence (ibid, at pp. 370–377). In the case before us, it appears that the assignment orders issued may constitute an effective and important means for ensuring security in the area, both because it distances the terrorists from the local center of terrorist activity in which they are active and disturbs their activity, and also due to the deterrent message that the assignment itself sends. The assignment periods are not uniform for all of petitioners, and that fact also shows that the military commander employed proper discretion in their cases, and that he used the assignment order mechanism at his disposal in a proportional fashion, determining a range of periods that reflects the extent of the dangerousness of each one of petitioners. Note that the discretion whether to employ the means of administrative detention or an assignment order, as well as the authority to decide where the residence will be assigned according to the order – in Judea and Samaria or in the Gaza Strip – are granted to the military commander, and the preferences of the petitioners, whatever they may be, cannot be decisive on the issue. In the cases before us, it appears from the classified material that was presented to us that the assignment of residence in the Judea and Samaria area is not sufficient in order to attain the preventative objective for which the orders were issued, and thus, even though such assignment would be less harmful, we see no justification for intervening in the discretion employed by the military commander on the issue. Regarding the preference of administrative detention: within the range of preventative and deterrent means which the military commander is authorized to employ, it appears that administrative detention, which involves absolute revocation of the detainee’s liberty and placing him behind bars, constitutes a more severe blow to his rights than assigning residence, even in an area which is not the assignee’s permanent place of domicile; assignment of residence is indeed a severe measure, but it preserves many of the assignee’s liberties, including freedom of movement within the assigned area. Thus, it should be seen as a means that restricts the liberty of the assignee, but not as one that completely revokes it (see Ajuri, and HCJ 9534/03 Adris v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank (yet unpublished)). It should also be remembered that pursuant to Article 39 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the assignee has the rights to living conditions in the area to which he was assigned according to the assignment order, and respondents indeed clearly obligated themselves before us, to fulfill their duties regarding petitioners in this context. That right also “softens” the blow to the person against whom the assignment order has been issued, and places the assignment order at a lower point along the range of severity, compared to administrative detention. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Sualameh case, Judgment, 4 December 2003, §§ 3–4.

Italy
In its decision in the Ferrini case in 2004, Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation stated:
7.2. As has been noted … the facts forming the basis of the claim for compensation made by the plaintiff consist of his capture and deportation to Germany to be used as a “non-voluntary worker” by German companies.
In line with Resolution 95-I of 11 December 1946, with which the United Nations General Assembly confirmed the principles of international law of the Charter and the judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, both the deportation and subjection to forced labour should be included among “war crimes” and therefore among crimes governed by international law.
The Charter, signed in London on 8 August 1945, stated that the category of “war crimes” also includes “deportation to forced labour” (Article 6, letter (b)).
The decision from the Nuremberg Tribunal of 30 September 1946 noted that such conduct constituted a “flagrant” violation of the Convention pertaining to laws and customs of war on land, signed at the Hague on 18 October 1907, whose appended Regulations established that services could be demanded of “inhabitants (only) to meet the requirements of the occupation” (Article 52), therefore prohibiting any such services from being required for other purposes. The applicability of this provision was challenged by the defendants, which made reference to article 2 of the Convention, noting that the Convention had not been signed by any of the belligerent States. The objection was overruled by the Tribunal, noting that in 1939 (and therefore before the start of the conflict) the “rules” that it had established had been recognised and accepted by all civil nations and had therefore taken on the force and status of customary law.
7.3. The assimilation of deportation and the subjection of deportees to forced labour as an “international crime” is confirmed both by the principles of international law adopted in June 1950 by the United Nations International Law Commission (principle VI), and by the Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council of 25 May 1993, 927/93 and 8 November 1994 no. 955/94, through which were adopted, respectively, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Articles 2 and 5) and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Article 3). It is also confirmed by the Convention through which the International Criminal Court was established, signed in Rome in 17 July 1998 by 139 States (of which 120 ratified it) and which entered into force on 1 July 2002 (articles 7 and 8).
7.4. Even if the points made in the decision referred to in the previous paragraph are not taken into account, there can be no doubt that in this regard a norm of general customary international law has emerged for all components of the international community. 
Italy, Supreme Court of Cassation, Ferrini case, Decision, 11 March 2004, §§ 7.2–7.4.

Netherlands
In its judgment in the Zimmerman case in 1949, the Special Court of Cassation of the Netherlands held that the deportation of civilians of occupied territories was a war crime and rejected the accused’s defence of superior orders as “the condemnation of these practices by public opinion must be deemed of general knowledge, and the accused must be deemed to have known they were illegal”. 
Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, Zimmerman case, Judgment, 21 November 1949.

Poland
In its judgment in the Greiser case in 1946, the Supreme National Tribunal at Poznan (Poland) found the accused, a former Deputy Gauleiter and President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, responsible for having ill-treated and deported to slave labour civilian inhabitants of occupied Polish territory and prisoners of war. The Court found that the accused took an active part in the deportation phase, with the aim of germanizing the territory through the deportation of adult Poles and Jews from the area. 
Poland, Supreme National Tribunal at Poznan, Greiser case, Judgment, 7 July 1946.

Russian Federation
In its judgment in the Situation in Chechnya case in 1995, the Russian Constitutional Court held that several orders and decrees issued by the Russian government in 1994 which provided for the eviction of “persons posing threats to public security and to the personal safety of citizens out of the territory of the Chechen Republic” were unconstitutional. 
Russian Federation, Constitutional Court, Situation in Chechnya case, Judgment, 31 July 1995.

Sweden
In its judgment in the Arklöf case in 2006, Sweden’s Stockholm District Court stated:
Displacement of civilians also took place in contravention of Additional Protocol II article 17. Arklöf participated actively in capturing and displacing civilians in the village of Rotimlja, and has thereby incurred individual responsibility for this.

The rules that have been violated have customary status. 
Sweden, Stockholm District Court, Arklöf case, Judgment, 18 December 2006, p. 63.

United States of America
In its judgment in the Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial) in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg considered that some of the accused, officials of I.G. Farben Industrie A.G. were responsible for having participated in the enslavement and deportation to slave labour of the civilian population of territory under belligerent occupation or otherwise controlled by Germany. The Court found that the utilization of forced labour, unless done under such circumstances as to relieve the employer of responsibility, constituted a violation of that part of Article II of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10, which recognized as war crimes and crimes against humanity the enslavement, deportation or imprisonment of the civilian population of other countries.  
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krauch case (The I.G. Farben Trial), 29 July 1948.

In its judgment in the Milch case in 1947, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found the accused, an inspector-general and a field-marshal in the German Air Force during the Second World War, responsible for the deportation of inhabitants of occupied territories, prisoners of war and German nationals, amounting to war crimes, under Article II of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10. The Tribunal found evidence that the accused took part in the decision process according to which workers from occupied territories were forcibly taken from their homes without knowledge of their destination, and deported to forced labour in factories manufacturing armaments. The deportees were deprived of the right to move freely or to choose their place of residence. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Milch case, Judgment, 17 April 1947.

In its judgment in the Krupp case in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found the accused, officials of Krupp A.G., guilty of participation in the programme of deportation to slave labour of members of the civilian population of the invaded countries. The Tribunal considered that such participation amounted to war crimes, under Article II of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, or took a consenting part in the deportation programme. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Krupp case, 30 June 1948.

In its judgment in the List case (The Hostages Trial) in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found high-ranking German officers guilty of war crimes under Article II of the 1945 Allied Control Council Law No. 10, for having taken part, as accessories or principals, in the torture, ill-treatment and deportation to slave labour of the civilian population of the occupied territories of Greece, Yugoslavia and Albania by troops of the German Armed Forces, acting pursuant to superior orders. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, List case (The Hostages Trial), Judgment, 19 February 1948.

In its judgment in the Von Leeb case (The High Command Trial) in 1948, the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found members of the German High Command guilty of war crimes, for their participation in atrocities and offences, including deportation of civilians to slave labour or other purposes. The evidence referred to deportation and enslavement of civilians carried out on a large scale. Workers were seized in the streets, under the pretext that they had to work for two to three days, and brought to work without any winter clothing. 
United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial), Judgment, 28 October 1948.

Back to top
Afghanistan
In 1997, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General and President of the UN Security Council, Afghanistan stated: “The heinous policy of coercive eviction and mass deportation of the civilian population … is a crime against humanity.” 
Afghanistan, Identical letters dated 19 January 1997 to the UN Secretary-General and the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/1997/54, 21 January 1997, Annex, p. 2.

Botswana
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Botswana condemned the forced displacement in Georgia. 
Botswana, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3535, 12 May 1995, p. 9.

Chad
In 2009, in its written replies to the issues raised by the Human Rights Committee with regard to Chad’s initial report, Chad stated: “Conflict between communities, Janjaweed incursions and rebel attacks have caused the internal displacement of 50,000 persons in the Dar Sila region”. 
Chad, Written replies by the Government of Chad to the Human Rights Committee concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the initial report of Chad, 20 January 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/TCD/Q/1/Add.1, submitted 12 January 2009, § 10.

Colombia
In 2004, in its third periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Colombia stated:
88. The problem of people displaced by the violence worsened in the years leading up to 2002 as the internal armed conflict flared up and spread, mostly as a result of the activities of self-defence and guerrilla groups who wanted to take control of certain areas, but also, indirectly and to a lesser extent, as a result of the presence of State forces in areas where they clashed with illegal groups.
89. This phenomenon is … one of the most serious human rights violations. 
Colombia, Third periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 August 2005, UN Doc. CRC/C/ Add.129, submitted 28 June 2004, §§ 88–89.

Egypt
The Report on the Practice of Egypt states that Egypt has taken the position that forced displacement and expulsion “en masse” should be prohibited in internal as well as in international armed conflicts. 
Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 5.5.

France
The Report on the Practice of France states that France especially censures the forcible displacement or deportation of the civilian population, when carried out in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It has even stated that it is its moral duty to react to protect displaced persons. France also clearly opposes the expulsion measures taken against the inhabitants of the territories occupied by Israel and considers them as contrary to the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. Representatives of France have described such measures as being of “exceptional gravity”. 
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 5.5 and 5.7.

Germany
In 1987, all political parties in the German parliament agreed that the deportations carried out during the conflict in Afghanistan constituted serious violations of human rights. 
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Proposal by the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and the Greens, Acht Jahre Krieg in Afghanistan, BT-Drucksache 11/1500, 9 December 1987, p. 1.

In 1993, the German Chancellor stated that displacement was deeply inhumane. 
Germany, Statement by the Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, Berlin, 24 May 1993, Bulletin, No. 45, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 29 May 1993, p. 488.

In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
With the 1998 guidelines on the handling of crises related to internally displaced persons (“Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement”) by the then Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Francis Deng, the international community has a practice-oriented document, which summarizes existing standards on the protection of internally displaced persons and gives further recommendations. Although these guiding principles are not a binding instrument under international law, their acceptance by States, international organizations and NGOs has continued to grow over the past years, so that now they are virtually regarded as customary international law. 
Germany, Federal Government, Seventh Human Rights Policy Report, 17 June 2005, pp. 97–98.

Islamic Republic of Iran
According to the Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran regarded the forcible transfer of civilians of occupied areas to Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a war crime. 
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 6.5.

Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated: “Forceful transfer of civilians is forbidden.” 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 226.

Japan
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Japan condemned forced displacement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
Japan, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3106, 13 August 1992, p. 21.

Jordan
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that Jordan has never ordered the forced movement of civilians nor compelled civilians to leave their own territory owing to internal armed conflict. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 5.5.

In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Jordan stated:
5.120 The wall being constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around east Jerusalem divides the West bank into six sections not linked except by or through Israeli checkpoints and controls. As indicated … it has the clear effect, and also the intention, of consolidating and protecting the civilian Jewish settlements constructed on the West Bank and in the East Jerusalem area with the active assistance of the Government of Israel. …
5.121 Those settlements involve an unlawful alteration of the population balance in the West bank. Consequently, the construction of the wall in such a way as to support that unlawful alteration of the population balance is itself unlawful.
5.122 The population balance of an occupied territory may be affected by the operation of two processes, either separately or taken together. On the one hand, the indigenous inhabitants may be removed from or compelled to leave the territory; on the other hand, persons from outside the territory, and particularly from the Occupying Power’s own country, may be transferred into the occupied territory. In respect of the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem, both processes have been at work; both are contrary to applicable international rules.

5.136 The other element in changes to an occupied territory’s population balance – the removal of the indigenous local inhabitants – has been equally apparent in Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories including in and around East Jerusalem. These general practices and policies are well-established and a matter of public record, but they serve only as background to the further application of these practices and policies resulting from the construction of the wall, which is the immediate concern of the present advisory proceedings.
5.137 In order for there to be “individual or mass forcible transfers … of protected persons from the occupied territory” in breach of Article 49 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] it is not necessary that the Occupying Power should, in a formal way, promulgate orders for the transfer of local populations (although clearly such orders would fall within the prohibition contained in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention): it is sufficient that the Occupying Power should adopt practices which are intended to drive the local inhabitants from their territory, or which may be reasonably foreseen to have that result. Given the nature of recent dispossession and displacement practices, as well as the concerted policy of forcible acquisition, recent observers have expressed concern about the possible future refugee flows …
5.138 Prohibited transfers may involve individuals as much as large numbers (“mass transfers”), and a transfer will be “forcible” if the measures adopted by the Occupying Power are such as in practice to leave the affected local population no realistic alternatives but to leave the territory. Even if such a movement of the local inhabitants is not the purpose behind the construction of the wall it is nevertheless a clear consequence, and Article 49 makes it clear that transfers of the local population are prohibited “regardless of their motive”. …

5.202 The policy and practice of displacement resulting from the construction of the wall, considered in its historical context and in the light of consistent patterns of expropriation, destruction of agricultural land, orchards and olive groves, designate [sic] of Palestinian land as “state land”, refusal of return of refugees, promotion of and assistance to non-indigenous settlers, allow an inference of permanent forcible transfers attributable to Israel. Such transfers are contrary to any exception permitted under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
5.203 Moreover, deportation and transfer incur individual criminal responsibility in international law. 
Jordan, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, §§ 5.120–5.122, 5.136–5.138 and 5.202–5.203.

Netherlands
In 1992, in a statement before the Commission of Foreign Affairs of the Lower House of Parliament concerning the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands stated:
Serbia refuses to recognise the independence and territorial integrity of the Bosnian State and carries out a pure policy of conquest, combined with the deportation of populations. The international community should strongly condemn this policy. 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the Commission on Foreign Affairs, 1991–1992 Session, Doc. 22 181, No. 22, p. 12.

In 1995, in a letter to the Lower House of Parliament, the Minister of Defence of the Netherlands stated: “The forced evacuation of the local population of Srebrenica, and now also Žepa, must be strongly condemned.” 
Netherlands, Letter from the Minister of Defence to the Lower House of Parliament, 1994–1995 Session, Doc. 22 181, No. 109, p. 6.

In 1996, in a note to the Lower House of Parliament concerning the refugee problem in Africa, the Minister for Development Cooperation of the Netherlands stated: “With respect to refugees and displaced persons, the Netherlands pays as much attention as possible, to prevent, in a comprehensive fashion, that people are displaced and have to flee.” 
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Note by the Minister of Development Cooperation concerning the refugee problem in Africa, 1995–1996 Session, Doc. 24 713, No. 1, p. 28.

New Zealand
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council, New Zealand condemned the forced displacement in the former Yugoslavia. 
New Zealand, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3217, 25 May 1993, p. 22.

Nigeria
In 1994, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Nigeria condemned the forced displacement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
Nigeria, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3344, 4 March 1994, p. 6.

Philippines
In practice, the forced displacement of civilians during military operations in the Philippines has been widely reported. 
Philippines, Presidential Human Rights Committee, Resolution 91-001 Providing for Guidelines on Evacuations, 26 March 1991, preamble; Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace, Fact-Finding Missions: Reflecting the Human Rights Situation in 1988, Justice and Peace Review, 1990, p. 9; Philippine Human Rights Information Center, The Internal Refugees in Negros: the case of “Operation Thunderbolt”, published by Human Rights Alliance in Negros (HRAN), Bacolod City, Philippines, October 1989, pp. 12–14, 29–31 and 76–85; Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), Report on the Implementation by the Philippine Government of Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 20 April 1995, pp. 1–4.

Russian Federation
In 1995, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Russia condemned the forced displacement in the former Yugoslavia. 
Russian Federation, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3591, 9 November 1995, p. 8.

According to the Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation considers forced displacement of the civilian population to be an “international crime”. 
Report on the Practice of Russia, 1997, Chapter 5.5.

Spain
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Spain condemned the forced displacement in Georgia. 
Spain, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3325, 22 December 1993, p. 18.

Switzerland
In 1988, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a note concerning the lawfulness of the Israeli authorities’ deportation to Lebanon of four Palestinian activists from the West Bank of Jordan. After deciding that the 1949 Geneva Convention IV applied to the situation in the region, the note concluded that Article 49 of the Convention
expressly prohibits 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, regardless of their motive …
It would appear that by evacuating four Palestinian civilians – irrespective of whether or not they were agitators – Israel contravened the Fourth Convention. This represents a “grave breach” in the meaning of article 147 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV].  
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Directorate for Public International Law, Note on the prohibition to expel and deport the population of an occupied territory – Applicability of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV to the territories occupied by Israel, 20 January 1988, reprinted in Annuaire suisse de droit international, Vol. 46, 1989, pp. 248–249.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1992 and 1993, during debates in the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom condemned the forced displacements in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the former Yugoslavia. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3106, 13 August 1992, p. 36; Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3175, 22 February 1993, p. 14; Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3217, 5 May 1993, p. 17.

In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The Government believe that the deportation by the state of Israel of persons against whom no charges have been laid may be inconsistent with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, including Article 147. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 18 November 2003, Vol. 413, Written Answers, col. 769W.

The UK Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (2010) states: “The forcible displacement of the civilian population is … prohibited unless required for the security of the population or imperative military reasons.” 
United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, March 2010, p. 4.

In 2010, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning Israel, a UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated: “The forcible transfer of people out of the OPTs [Occupied Palestinian Territories] for political reasons is illegal and in contravention of the provisions on deportation of civilians in Article 49 of the [1949] Fourth Geneva Convention.” 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written Answer by a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 26 July 2010, Vol. 720, Written Answers, col. WA288.

United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated that it considered the individual and mass forcible deportation of Kuwaiti and third country nationals to Iraq, in violation of Articles 49 and 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, to be a war crime. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 618–619 and 634–635.

In 1992, in a report submitted pursuant to paragraph 5 of UN Security Council Resolution 771 (1992) on grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV in the former Yugoslavia, the United States stated that mass forcible expulsion and deportation of civilians were listed as grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. The report collated information on 12 such instances of expulsion and deportation. 
United States, Former Yugoslavia: Grave Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, annexed to Letter dated 22 September 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24583, 23 September 1992, p. 9.

In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the United States condemned the forced displacement in the former Yugoslavia. 
United States, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3175, 22 February 1993, p. 12.

The Report on US Practice states: “Article 17 of Protocol II reflects general U.S. policy on displacement in internal armed conflicts.” 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 5.5, referring to Message from the US President Transmitting the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the US Senate for Advice and Consent to Ratification, Treaty Doc. 100-2, 29 January 1987, Comment on Article 17.

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated in its counter-memorial submitted to the ICJ in 1997:
1.1.3.5. Reference in a general way to ethnic cleansing cannot satisfy the obligation to prove the existence of the genocidal intent. Ethnic cleansing is loathsome unlawful policy. But if the goal of that policy is to repulse by force, including killings and torture, members of an ethnic or religious group from a certain territory, this excludes “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Or, at least, it does not imply the existence of such intent.

1.2.1.2. In … the Application, the Applicant refers to the so-called ethnic cleansing. In para. 19 of the Application, the Applicant points out that “the nearly 2 million Muslim and Croat refugees /were/ expelled from these Serb-held territories. Victims spoke of the use of intimidation and violence to induce them to leave their homes …” None of the acts of “intimidation and violence to induce them to leave their homes” constitute acts of genocide since there is no genocidal intent. Ethnic cle ansing is certainly a crime against humanity but it cannot be defined as genocide on the basis of the Genocide Convention.

1.3.5.2. Acts of expulsion of people and destruction of property are illegal according to relevant rules of international law. Such acts can be qualified as crimes against humanity, violations of the law or custom of war or as grave breaches of the Geneva Convention of 1949. (See Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991.) But they cannot be qualified as acts forbidden by the Genocide Convention.

4.16.1.4. According to the Genocide Convention, “ethnic cleansing” is not a crime of genocide. It can be qualified as a grave breach of the Geneva Convention of 1949, violation of the law or customs of war or crime against humanity. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Counter-memorial submitted to the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 23 July 1997, pp. 7–319, §§ 1.1.3.5.–4.16.1.4.

In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in 2006, Serbia and Montenegro stated:
It is also true that the parties to the conflict went to great lengths to displace the population by force and used criminal methods; … despite the fact that criminal methods were used and these acts can admittedly amount to war crimes and sometimes to crimes against humanity, in no case do they amount to genocide. 
Serbia and Montenegro, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 10 March 2006, Verbatim Record CR 2006/15, p. 42, § 203.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on political conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council:
Calls upon all parties and others concerned to ensure that forcible expulsions of persons from the areas where they live and any attempts to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, cease immediately. 
UN Security Council, Res. 752, 15 May 1992, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UN Security Council condemned the forced “large-scale displacement of civilians” in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
UN Security Council, Res. 819, 16 April 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In several resolutions adopted in 1993 on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the UN Security Council expressed grave concern at “the displacement of a large number of civilians”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 822, 30 April 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0; Res. 874, 14 October 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0; Res. 884, 12 November 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution on Rwanda adopted in 1994, the UN Security Council expressed deep concern that the situation had resulted in “the internal displacement of a significant percentage of the Rwandan population”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 918, 17 May 1994, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Security Council demanded that Croatia “respect fully the rights of the local Serb population, including their rights to remain, leave or return in safety”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1009, 10 August 1995, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council referred to the unlawful deportation of civilians as a “grave violation of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1019, 9 November 1995, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council, after reiterating the principle of individual responsibility, condemned in particular the “consistent pattern of massive expulsions”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1034, 21 December 1995, §§ 1 and 2, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 concerning children in armed conflict, the UN Security Council strongly condemned certain crimes involving children in armed conflict, including their “abduction and forced displacement”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1539, 22 April 2004, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council condemned “all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties to the crisis, in particular by the Janjaweed, including … forced displacements”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1556, 30 July 2004, preamble, voting record: 13-0-2.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Recalling in this regard that all parties, including the Sudanese rebel groups such as the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese Liberation Army, must respect human rights and international humanitarian law … ,

11. Demands that Government and rebel forces and all other armed groups … refrain from forcible relocation of civilians. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1574, 19 November 2004, preamble and § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council:
5. Reaffirms also its condemnation in the strongest terms of all acts of violence or abuses committed against civilians in situations of armed conflict in violation of applicable international obligations with respect in particular to … (vi) forced displacement … and demands that all parties put an end to such practices;

12. Recalls the prohibition of the forcible displacement of civilians in situations of armed conflict under circumstances that are in violation of parties’ obligations under international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1674, 28 April 2006, §§ 5 and 12, voting record: 15-0-0.

In 1994, in a statement by its President on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council expressed its deep concern “at the increased number of people that have … been displaced”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/9, 25 February 1994, p. 1.

The same year, in another statement by its President on the subject, the Security Council expressed its concern at the “large-scale displacement of persons”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/33, 13 July 1994, p. 2.

In 1995, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council expressed its concerns about the forced displacement in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1995/32, 14 July 1995, p. 1.

In 1997, in a statement by its President on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council expressed its deep concern “at the worsening of the humanitarian situation, including the displacement of the civilian population”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/20, 16 April 1997, p. 2.

In 1997, in a statement by its President on the situation in Burundi, the UN Security Council expressed its deep concern “at the involuntary resettlement of rural populations”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/32, 30 May 1997, p. 1.

In 2004, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council expresses its deep concern at the continuing reports of large-scale violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law in Darfur, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, sexual violence, forced displacement and acts of violence. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/18, 25 May 2004, p. 1.

UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on basic principles for the protection of civilian populations in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly affirmed that “[c]ivilian populations, or individual members thereof, should not be the object of … forcible transfers”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2675 (XXV), 9 December 1970, § 7, voting record: 109-0-8-10.

In a resolution adopted in 1974 entitled “Declaration on the protection of women and children in emergency and armed conflict”, the UN General Assembly solemnly proclaimed that “forcible eviction, committed by belligerents in the course of military operations or in occupied territories shall be considered criminal”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3318 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, § 5, voting record: 110-0-14-14.

In a resolution adopted in 1981, the UN General Assembly, on the basis of Articles 1 and 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV:
Demands that the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling and imprisoning the Mayors of Hebron and Halhul and in expelling the Sharia Judge of Hebron and that it facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders so that they can resume the functions for which they were elected and appointed. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 D, 16 December 1981, § 1, voting record: 143-1-2-11.

This demand was reiterated in subsequent resolutions adopted in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 37/88 D, 9 December 1982, § 1, voting record: 133-1-1-22; UN General Assembly, Res. 38/79 E, 15 December 1983, § 1, voting record: 146-1-1-10; UN General Assembly, Res. 39/95 E, 14 December 1984, § 1, voting record: 143-1-1-14; UN General Assembly, Res. 40/161 E, 16 December 1985, § 2, voting record: 126-1-19-13 (as regards the resolution as a whole); 110-2-33 (as regards operative § 1).

In a resolution adopted in 1981, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned “evacuation, deportation, expulsion, displacement and transfer of Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories and denial of their right to return”.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 C, 16 December 1981, § 7(c), voting record: 111-2-31-13.

This condemnation was reiterated in subsequent resolutions adopted in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 37/88 C, 9 December 1982, § 7(d), voting record: 112-2-21-22; UN General Assembly, Res. 38/79 D, 15 December 1983, § 7(d), voting record: 115-2-27-14; UN General Assembly, Res. 39/95 D, 14 December 1984, § 7(e), voting record: 115-2-28-14; UN General Assembly, Res. 40/161 D, 16 December 1985, § 8(e), voting record: 109-2-34-14 (as regards the resolution as a whole); 136-1-7 (as regards operative § 21).

In a resolution adopted in 1991 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN General Assembly expressed deep concern at “the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/134, 17 December 1991, preamble, voting record: 129-1-17-19.

In another resolution adopted in 1992 on the same subject, the General Assembly expressed deep concern at “the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/145, 18 December 1992, preamble, voting record: 126-2-26-25.

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly expressed “its outrage at … the acts of violence aimed at forcing individuals from their homes”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, § 2, voting record: 144-1-20-20.

In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern at “continuing serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties, in particular … forced displacement of populations”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 55/116, 4 December 2000, § 2(ii), voting record: 85-32-49-23.

In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the illegality of the deportation of any Palestinian by Israel, the occupying Power, and affirming its opposition to any such deportation,
Reiterating the need for respect, in all circumstances, of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, desist from any act of deportation. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/12, 19 September 2003, preamble and § 2, voting record: 133-4-15-39.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly urged “the Government of Myanmar, as stated in its resolution 57/231 and in Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/12 … to end systematic enforced displacement”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/247, 23 December 2003, § 6(c), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly condemned “the events that occurred in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, including the loss of life, injury, widespread destruction and displacement inflicted on many of its civilian inhabitants”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, § 5, voting record: 149-7-22-13.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly called upon the Government of Myanmar to end “the policy of the systematic enforced displacement of persons and other policies leading to displacement within Myanmar and refugee flows to neighbouring countries”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/263, 23 December 2004, § 3(j), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly strongly called upon the Government of Myanmar to end “the systematic forced displacement of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/233, 23 December 2005, § 3(g), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern “over the tragic events that have occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, since 28 September 2000, including … the internal displacement of civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/25, 1 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 157-7-10-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly condemned “the excessive use of force by Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in … the internal displacement of civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, § 3, voting record: 157-9-14-12.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the human rights situation arising from Israeli military operations in Lebanon, the UN General Assembly:
Condemns all acts of violence against civilians … and the displacement of up to one million Lebanese civilians and outflows of refugees fleeing heavy shelling and bombardment directed against the civilian population, thus exacerbating the magnitude of human suffering in Lebanon. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/154, 19 December 2006, § 1, voting record: 112-7-64-9.

In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly:
2. Expresses grave concern at:

(b) The attacks by military forces on villages in Karen State and other ethnic States in Myanmar, leading to extensive forced displacements and serious violations of the human rights of the affected populations;

3. Strongly calls upon the Government of Myanmar:

(d) To end the systematic forced displacement of large numbers of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/232, 22 December 2006, §§ 2(b) and 3(d), voting record: 82-25-45-40.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly expressed its concern over “the negative developments that have continued to occur in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including … the internal displacement of civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/83, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 161-7-5-19.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly condemned “the excessive use of force by Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, which have caused extensive loss of life and vast injuries … and internal displacement of civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, § 3, voting record: 156-7-11-18.

In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN General Assembly strongly called upon the Government of Myanmar:
To take urgent measures to put an end to the military operations targeting civilians in the ethnic areas, and to the associated violations of human rights and humanitarian law directed against persons belonging to ethnic nationalities, to end the systematic forced displacement of large numbers of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries and to respect existing ceasefire agreements. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/222, 22 December 2007, § 4(h), voting record: 83-22-47-40.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the practice of forced displacement in Zaire and stated that the government authorities bore primary responsibility for the situation. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/87, 9 March 1994, § 4, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the practice of forced displacement in the Sudan. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/77, 8 March 1995, preamble, voting record: 33-7-10.

In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all parties to the hostilities to protect all civilians from violations of human rights and IHL, including forcible displacement. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/73, 23 April 1996, § 15, adopted without a vote.

In 1996, in a statement by its Chairman, the UN Commission on Human Rights stated that it strongly deplored the suffering inflicted on displaced persons resulting from severe destruction of Chechen towns. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Chairman’s statement, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/SR.61, 29 April 1996, p. 3.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern at “forced relocation” and strongly urged the Government of Myanmar to “end the systematic enforced displacement of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/12, 16 April 2003, §§ 3(c) and 5(g), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Burundi, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Remains concerned at the ongoing violence and the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law as well as the security situation in parts of the country, inducing the displacement of many people within and outside the country, and notes the efforts by the Burundian authorities to ensure that established safeguards for human rights and international human rights standards are fully respected.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/16, 17 April 2003, § 5, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 concerning the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Concerned … that persons belonging to minorities often suffer disproportionately the effects of conflict resulting in the violation of their human rights and are particularly vulnerable to displacement through, inter alia, population transfers, refugee flows and forced relocation. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/50, 23 April 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on internally displaced persons, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Noting that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (A/CONF.183/9) defines the deportation or forcible transfer of population as a crime against humanity and the unlawful deportation or transfer of the civilian population as well as ordering the displacement of the civilian population as war crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/51, 23 April 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on human rights and mass exoduses, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizing that acts of deportation or forcible transfer of populations which, inter alia, lead to or result from mass exoduses and displacements, are included as crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and recognizing also the importance of ending impunity for perpetrators of such crimes,

1. Calls upon all States to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination, to refrain from denying these to individuals in their population because of nationality, ethnicity, race, gender, age, religion, political or other opinion, or language and, in so doing, to make a substantial contribution to addressing human rights situations that lead to or result from mass exoduses and displacements;

3. Reaffirms the need for all Governments, intergovernmental bodies and concerned international organizations to intensify their cooperation and assistance to address human rights situations that lead to, as well as the serious protection problems that result from, mass exoduses of refugees and displaced persons;

5. Encourages States that have not already done so to consider acceding to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, as far as possible without reservations, and to relevant regional instruments concerning refugees, as applicable, and other relevant international instruments of human rights and humanitarian law, and to take appropriate measures to disseminate and implement those instruments domestically in order to encourage compliance with provisions against arbitrary and forcible displacement and greater respect for the rights of those who flee. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/52, 24 April 2003, preamble, §§ 1, 3 and 5, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the “ongoing widespread violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law, in particular against internally displaced persons, minorities, vulnerable groups, women and children, including … the forced displacement of civilians”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/78, 25 April 2003, § 6(b), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Concerned … that persons belonging to minorities often suffer disproportionately the effects of conflict resulting in the violation of their human rights and are particularly vulnerable to displacement through, inter alia, population transfers, refugee flows and forced relocation. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/51, 20 April 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on internally displaced persons, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Noting that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (A/CONF.183/9) defines the deportation or forcible transfer of population as a crime against humanity and the unlawful deportation or transfer of the civilian population as well as ordering the displacement of the civilian population as war crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/55, 20 April 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern at “forced relocation” and strongly urged the Government of Myanmar to end “the systematic enforced displacement of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/61, 21 April 2004, §§ 3(d) and 5(i), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2004 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the “ongoing widespread violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law, in particular against internally displaced persons, minorities, vulnerable groups, women and children, including … the forced displacement of civilians”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/80, 21 April 2004, § 9(c), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern at “forced relocation” and called upon the Government of Myanmar to end “the systematic enforced displacement of persons and other causes of refugee flows to neighbouring countries”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/10, 14 April 2005, §§ 3(f) and 5(e), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged “all parties to armed conflict to end … violations against children, including … forced displacement of children and their families”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/44, 19 April 2005, § 36, voting record: 52-1-0.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on internally displaced persons, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Deeply disturbed by the alarmingly high numbers throughout the world of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of habitual residence and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border, for reasons including armed conflict, violations of human rights and natural or human-made disasters,

Recalls the relevant norms of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international refugee law, and recognizes that the protection of internally displaced persons has been strengthened by identifying, reaffirming and consolidating specific standards for their protection, in particular through the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement,

Notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines the deportation or forcible transfer of population as a crime against humanity and the unlawful deportation or transfer of the civilian population as well as ordering the displacement of the civilian population as war crimes. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/46, 19 April 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on human rights and mass exoduses, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizing that acts of deportation or forcible transfer of populations which, inter alia, lead to or result from mass exoduses and displacements are included as crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and recognizing also the importance of ending impunity for perpetrators of such crimes,

1. Calls upon all States to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination of any kind, such as on the basis of national or social origin, ethnicity, race, gender, age, religion, political or other opinion, language, birth or other status, and, in so doing, to make a substantial contribution to addressing human rights situations that lead to or result from mass exoduses and displacements;

3. Reaffirms the need for all Governments, intergovernmental bodies and concerned international organizations to intensify their cooperation and assistance to address human rights situations that lead to, as well as the serious protection problems that result from, mass exoduses of refugees and displaced persons;

5. Encourages States that have not already done so to consider acceding to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, as far as possible without reservations, and to relevant regional instruments concerning refugees, as applicable, and other relevant international instruments of human rights and humanitarian law, and also encourages States to consider lifting reservations that they may have made to such instruments and to take appropriate measures to disseminate and implement those instruments domestically in order to encourage compliance with provisions against arbitrary and forcible displacement and greater respect for the rights of those who flee. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/48, 19 April 2005, preamble, §§ 1, 3 and 5, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in Nepal, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Deeply concerned about the situation of human rights in Nepal, including violations attributed to the security forces, in particular unlawful killings, all forms of sexual violence, forced displacement and disappearances, …

4. Strongly condemns the repeated practices of members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), such as:
(a) … forced displacement. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, preamble and § 4(a), adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Concerned … that persons belonging to minorities often suffer disproportionately the effects of conflict resulting in the violation of their human rights and are particularly vulnerable to displacement through, inter alia, population transfers, refugee flows and forced relocation. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/79, 21 April 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Expressing its deep concern at the situation of human rights in Darfur, in particular attacks against civilians, gender-based violence and the dire consequences of the prolonged conflict for the civilian population in Darfur, in particular the increase in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons,

2. Condemns:

(b) The violence against civilians and … widespread displacement and other violations in Darfur and urges all parties to take necessary steps to prevent further violations.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/82, 21 April 2005, preamble and § 2(b), adopted without a vote.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In resolutions adopted in 1988 and 1989 on the situation in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied by Israel, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, after reaffirming that the 1949 Geneva Convention IV was applicable, considered that the expulsion and deportation of civilians from their homeland by force was a war crime under international law. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1988/10, 31 August 1988, § 3; Res. 1989/4, 31 August 1989, § 3.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In a progress report submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in 1994, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements concluded: “Forcible population transfer, save in areas when derogation or military necessity permits, are prima facie internationally wrongful acts.” 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Progress report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/18, 30 June 1994, § 132.

In his final report submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in 1997, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements stated:
15. Specific rights which population transfers violate include the right to self-determination; the right to privacy, family life and home; the prohibition on forced labour; the right to work; the prohibition of arbitrary detention, including internment prior to expulsion; the right to nationality as well as the right of a child to a nationality; the right to property or peaceful enjoyment of possessions; the right to social security; and protection from incitement to racial hatred or religious intolerance …
16. The range of human rights violated by population transfers and the implantation of settlers place this phenomenon in the category of systematic or mass violations of human rights …

64. As affirmed in the Special Rapporteur’s progress report, international law prohibits the transfer of persons, including the implantation of settlers, as a general principle, and the governing principle is that any displacement of populations must have the consent of the population involved. Accordingly, the criteria governing forcible transfer rest on the absence of consent and also include the use of force, coercive measures, and inducement to flee.

70. Consideration must be given by the Sub-Commission to the possibility of preparing an international instrument to set or codify international standards which are applicable to the situation of population transfer and the implantation of settlers. Such an instrument should: provide for an express reaffirmation of the unlawfulness of population transfer and the implantation of settlers; define State responsibility in the matter of unlawful population transfer, including the implantation of settlers; provide for the criminal responsibility of individuals involved in population transfer, whether such individuals be private or officials of the State. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, §§ 15, 16, 64 and 70.

The Special Rapporteur proposed a draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers for adoption by the UN Commission on Human Rights which provided:
Article 4
1. Every person has the right to remain in peace, security and dignity in one’s home, or on one’s land and in one’s country.
2. No person shall be compelled to leave his place of residence.
3. The displacement of the population or parts thereof shall not be ordered, induced or carried out …
Article 9
The above practices of population transfer constitute internationally wrongful acts giving rise to State responsibility and to individual criminal liability. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, Annex II, Draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers, Articles 4 and 9.

UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in a report on MONUA in Angola, the UN Secretary-General stated:
Over the past few months, indiscriminate as well as summary killings … have been reported in the course of attacks targeting entire villages … At such times, principles of humanitarian law are especially important as they seek to protect the most vulnerable groups – those who are not involved in military operations – from direct or indiscriminate attack or being forced to flee. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on MONUA, UN Doc. S/1998/931, 8 October 1998, § 17.

Back to top
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a recommendation adopted in 1992 on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly considered that the expulsion of civilians was a crime against humanity and that persons responsible for such crimes should be held personally accountable. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Rec. 1198, 5 November 1992, § 6.

European Union
In 1991, in several reports concerning violations of IHL in areas of the former Yugoslavia, EU observers denounced various attacks on the civilian population aimed at forcing its displacement. 
Report by EU observers on statements about violations of the second protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning Ilok and the surrounding villages of Bapska, Lovas and Šarengrad, 1 November 1991, pp. 3–4; Report by EU observers on statements about violations of the second protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning Slunj, the surrounding villages situated in the region south of Slunj and villages in the Municipality of Korenica, 10 November 1991; Report by EU observers on statements about violations of the second protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning Drnić and the villages in the Municipality of Drnić, 19 November 1991, pp. 4–5; Report by EU observers on statements about violations of the second protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning Slavonska Požega and villages in the Municipality of Slavonska Požega, 26 November 1991, p. 4.

GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 10th Session in 1989, the GCC Supreme Council demanded an end to Israel’s “oppressive measures, including the deportation of Palestinians and the demolishing of houses, which run counter to the principles of human rights and international norms and conventions”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 10th Session, Muscat, 18–21 December 1989, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 29 December 1989 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/73-S/21065, 2 January 1990, p. 4.

In the Final Communiqué of its 13th Session in 1992, the GCC Supreme Council reaffirmed its conviction that “the policy of mass expulsions … represent a total contravention of all the Charters, Laws and Conventions of the International Community of Nations” and strongly condemned “the arbitrary and unjust Israeli measures of expulsion as a contravention of Human Rights [and] a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention”. The Council stated that it followed with grave concern and deep regret the degradation of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the “carrying out of the worst crimes of … mass expulsion”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 13th Session, Abu Dhabi, 21–23 December 1992, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 24 December 1992 from the United Arab Emirates to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/47/845-S/25020, 30 December 1992, pp. 6 and 8.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the Israeli occupation of parts of southern Lebanon and western Bekaa, the League of Arab States Council decided:
to call upon the International Community to exercise pressure on the Zionist entity to stop [arbitrary and inhuman] practices immediately, in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, especially as regards displacing nationals, destroying their houses and damaging their properties and belongings in these areas. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 4430, 28 March 1985, § 2.

In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the Israeli occupation of parts of southern Lebanon and western Bekaa, the League of Arab States Council decided:
to strongly condemn Israel for its deportation of Palestinian citizens from the occupied Palestinian territories to Lebanon, as this arbitrary and inhuman act is a blatant violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and a sustained aggression against the inviolability of its territories, as well as a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, so that these arbitrary and aggressive practices must be stopped immediately. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5169, 29 April 1992, § 3.

In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the Israeli occupation of parts of southern Lebanon and western Bekaa, the League of Arab States Council decided “to strongly condemn Israel for … its inhuman practices against the peaceful people and for the deportation of a certain number of them, which are all breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and to call for a stop of such arbitrary practices”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5324, 21 September 1993, § 2.

League of Arab States
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, the League of Arab States stated:
9.14. Art. 49 of the Fourth [Geneva] Convention stipulates:
“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations from occupied territory to the territory … of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
It has been shown above that it is the practical, if not the intended effect of the wall that the population of the areas cut off by that barrier move away because of the unbearable living conditions.
9.15. The construction of the wall thus constitutes a forbidden forcible mass transfer within the meaning [of] article 49 of the Fourth [Geneva] Convention. 
League of Arab States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 30 January 2004, p. 87.

Back to top
International Conference of the Red Cross (1986)
The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution on respect for international humanitarian law in armed conflicts and action by the ICRC for persons protected by the Geneva Conventions in which it deplored “the forceful displacement of civilian populations by occupation troops … in violation of the laws and customs of war”. 
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. I, preamble.

International Conference for the Protection of War Victims (1993)
In the Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants declared, inter alia, that they “refuse to accept that … populations [are] illegally displaced”.  
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I (1).

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1995)
The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995 adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population in period of armed conflict in which it stressed “the general prohibition on forced displacement of the civilian population, which often causes widespread famine”. 
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. II, § E(b).

The 26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1995 adopted a resolution on principles and action in international humanitarian assistance and protection in which it called upon States to “respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, in particular the general prohibition of forced displacement of civilians”. 
26th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 3–7 December 1995, Res. 4, § A(1)(a).

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (1999)
The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003 adopted in 1999 by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent proposed that all the parties to an armed conflict take effective measures to ensure that “actions provoking unwarranted population displacements are avoided”. 
27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 31 October–6 November 1999, Res. I, Annex 2, Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, Actions proposed for final goal 1.1, § 1(c).

African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict
The Final Declaration adopted in 2002 by the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict stated that it was
deeply concerned about the number and expansion of conflicts in Africa and alarmed by the spread of violence, in particular in the form of … forced displacement of persons and use of force to prevent their return … which seriously violate the rules of International Humanitarian Law. 
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, Final Declaration, preamble.

Back to top
International Criminal Court
In the Harun case before the ICC in 2007, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, dealing with the situation in Darfur, Sudan, issued an arrest warrant for Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”), minister of state for the interior of the Government of Sudan from in or about April 2003 until in or about September 2005, and minister of state for humanitarian affairs of the Government of Sudan since 2006. The decision was based, inter alia, on counts of forcible transfer as a crime against humanity. The Pre-Trial Chamber considered that there were reasonable grounds to believe that:
From on or about 15 August 2003 to on or about 31 August 2003, Ahmad Harun, as part of a group of persons acting with a common purpose, contributed to the forcible transfer of approximately 20,000 primarily Fur civilians from the Kodoom villages and surrounding areas, resulting in the desertion of the villages (articles 7(1)(d) and 25(3)(d) of the [1998 ICC] Statute);

On and about 15 August 2003, Ahmad Harun, as part of a group of persons acting with a common purpose, contributed to the forcible transfer of approximately 34,000 primarily Fur civilians from Bindisi town and surrounding areas, resulting in the desertion of the town (articles 7(1)(d) and 25(3)(d) of the [1998 ICC] Statute);

In or around December 2003, Ahmad Harun, as part of a group of persons acting with a common purpose, contributed to the forcible transfer of approximately 7,000 primarily Fur civilians from Arawala town and surrounding areas to the towns of Deleig, Garsila and other locations, resulting in the desertion of the town (articles 7(1)(d) and 25(3)(d) of the [1998 ICC] Statute). 
ICC, Harun case, Warrant of Arrest, 27 April 2007, Counts 9, 20 and 51.

In the Kushayb case before the ICC in 2007, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I, dealing with the situation in Darfur, Sudan, issued an arrest warrant for Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”), a member of the Popular Defence Force (PDF) and a senior leader of the Militia/Janjaweed. The decision was based, inter alia, on counts of forcible transfer as a crime against humanity. The Pre-Trial Chamber considered that there were reasonable grounds to believe that:
From on or about 15 August 2003 to on or about 31 August 2003, Ali Kushayb, as part of a group of persons acting with a common purpose, contributed to the forcible transfer of approximately 20,000 primarily Fur civilians from the Kodoom villages and surrounding areas, resulting in the desertion of the villages (articles 7(1)(d) and 25(3)(d) of the [1998 ICC] Statute);

On or about 15 August 2003, Ali Kushayb, as part of a group of persons acting with a common purpose, contributed to the forcible transfer of approximately 34,000 primarily Fur civilians from Bindisi town and surrounding areas, resulting in the desertion of the town (articles 7(1)(d) and 25(3)(d) of the [1998 ICC] Statute);

In or around December 2003, Ali Kushayb, as part of a group of persons acting with a common purpose, contributed to the forcible transfer of approximately 7,000 primarily Fur civilians from Arawala town and surrounding areas to the towns of Deleig, Garsila and other locations, resulting in the desertion of the town (articles 7(1)(d) and 25(3)(d) of the [1998 ICC] Statute). 
ICC, Kushayb case, Warrant of Arrest, 27 April 2007, Counts 9, 20 and 51.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgment in the Kupreškić case in 2000, the ICTY Trial Chamber, in defining the constituent offences of crimes against humanity (other inhumane acts), held:
Less broad parameters for the interpretation of “other inhumane acts” can instead be identified in international standards on human rights such as those laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 and the two United Nations Covenants on Human Rights of 1966. Drawing upon the various provisions of these texts, it is possible to identify a set of basic rights appertaining to human beings, the infringement of which may amount, depending on the accompanying circumstances, to a crime against humanity … Similarly, the expression at issue undoubtedly embraces the forcible transfer of groups of civilians (which is to some extent covered by Article 49 of the IVth [Geneva] Convention of 1949 and Article 17(1) of the Additional Protocol II of 1977) … In other words, they must be as serious as the other classes of crimes provided for in the other provisions of Article 5. 
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, § 566.

In the Krstić case before the ICTY in 1999, the accused, a senior officer in the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS), was charged with several counts of crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the events in the Srebrenica enclave in 1995: persecutions (inter alia in the form of deportation or forcible transfer), punishable under Article 5(h) of the 1993 ICTY Statute; deportation, punishable under Article 5(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute; and, alternatively, other inhumane acts (forcible transfer), punishable under Article 5(i) of the 1993 ICTY Statute. 
ICTY, Krstić case, Amended Indictment, 27 October 1999, §§ 29–33, Counts 6–8.

In its judgment in 2001, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated:
521. Both deportation and forcible transfer relate to the involuntary and unlawful evacuation of individuals from the territory in which they reside. Yet, the two are not synonymous in customary international law. Deportation presumes transfer beyond State borders, whereas forcible transfer relates to displacements within a State.
522. However, this distinction has no bearing on the condemnation of such practices in international humanitarian law. Article 2(g) of the Statute, Articles 49 and 147 of the Geneva Convention concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention), Article 85(4)(a) of Additional Protocol I, Article 18 of the ILC Draft Code and Article 7(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court all condemn deportation or forcible transfer of protected persons. Article 17 of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol II likewise condemns the “displacement” of civilians.
523. In this regard, the Trial Chamber notes that any forced displacement is by definition a traumatic experience which involves abandoning one’s home, losing property and being displaced under duress to another location. As previously stated by the Trial Chamber in the Kupreškić case, forcible displacement within or between national borders is included as an inhumane act under Article 5(i) defining crimes against humanity. Whether, in this instance, the facts constitute forcible transfer or deportation is discussed below.

(a) Lawfulness of the transfer
524. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 17 of [the Additional] Protocol II allow total or partial evacuation of the population “if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand”. Article 49 however specifies that “[p]ersons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased”.

(b) The compulsory nature of the transfer
528. The Chamber next must determine whether the civilians were in fact forcefully transferred. The commentary to Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV suggests that departures motivated by the fear of discrimination are not necessarily in violation of the law:
[T]he Diplomatic Conference preferred not to place an absolute prohibition on transfers of all kinds, as some might up to a certain point have the consent of those being transferred. The Conference had particularly in mind the case of protected persons belonging to ethnic or political minorities who might have suffered discrimination or persecution on that account and might therefore wish to leave the country. In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the Conference decided to authorise voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit ‘forcible’ transfers.
529. However, the finalised draft text of the elements of the crimes adopted by the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court provides:
[t]he term ‘forcibly’ is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.

(c) The fact of the transfer within the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina
531. … Bosnia-Herzegovina was the only State formally recognised by the international community at the time of the events. Since the Srebrenica civilians were displaced within the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the forcible displacement may not be characterised as deportation in customary international law.
532. The Chamber therefore concludes that the civilians assembled at Poto[č]ari and transported to Kladanj were not subjected to deportation but rather to forcible transfer. This forcible transfer, in the circumstances of this case, still constitutes a form of inhumane treatment covered under Article 5. 
ICTY, Krstić case, Judgment, 2 August 2001, §§ 521–532.

The Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of persecutions (committed, inter alia, through the inhumane act of forcible transfer). 
ICTY, Krstić case, Judgment, 2 August 2001, § 727, V. Disposition.

In its judgment in 2004, the ICTY Appeals Chamber also found the accused guilty of persecutions (committed, inter alia, through the inhumane act of forcible transfer). While the Trial Chamber had convicted the accused as a principal co-perpetrator, under Article 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Shahabuddeen dissenting, considered his level of criminal responsibility under Article 7(1) of the Statute to be that of an aider and abettor.  
ICTY, Krstić case, Judgment on Appeal, 19 April 2004, VII. Disposition, p. 87.

The Naletilić and Martinović case before the ICTY in 2001 dealt with crimes surrounding the military offensive launched in May 1993 by the Army of the Republic of Croatia (HV) and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) against the Bosnian Muslim population of Mostar (South-western Bosnia and Herzegovina), and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH). Each of the two accused was charged with grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (unlawful transfer of a civilian – as recognized by Article 2(g) of the 1993 ICTY Statute) for crimes that included being responsible for and having ordered
the forcible transfer of Bosnian Muslim civilians that started on the 9 May 1993 and continued until at least January 1994. The KB [Kaznjenicka Bojna or “Convicts’ Battalion”] members under their command were prominent in the eviction, arrest and forcible transfers of Bosnian Muslim civilians throughout the relevant period, and particularly during the two large waves of forcible transfers that took place in May and July 1993. Once the KB and other HVO units had identified persons of Muslim ethnic background, they arrested them, evicted them, plundered their homes and forcibly transferred them across the confrontation lines to the territories under ABiH control. The ABiH held a section of the city which was under siege by the HV and HVO forces, who were shelling intensely the area and preventing the arrival of humanitarian aid and basic supplies. [The accused] commanded operations for this purpose and gave orders to their subordinates to proceed with forcible transfers. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Second Amended Indictment, 16 October 2001, § 54, Count 18.

In its judgment, the Trial Chamber noted that “[f]orcible transfer is the movement of individuals under duress from where they reside to a place that is not of their choosing”. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, § 519.

The Trial Chamber found that, in order to show that there had been an unlawful transfer of civilians in contravention of Article 2(g) of the 1993 ICTY Statute, proof of the following is required:
i) the general requirements of Article 2 of the Statute are fulfilled;
ii) the occurrence of an act or omission, not motivated by the security of the population or imperative military reasons, leading to the transfer of a person from occupied territory or within occupied territory;
iii) the intent of the perpetrator to transfer a person. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, § 520.

Subsequently, the Trial Chamber found each of the accused guilty of committing the unlawful transfer of a civilian as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, under Articles 2(g) and 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute. (This became the first decision of the ICTY dealing with the charge of unlawful transfer of a civilian under Article 2(g) of the Statute as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In earlier cases, the Blaškić Trial Judgment, the Krnojelac Trial Judgment and the Krstić Trial Judgment had dealt with forcible transfer and/or deportation as a crime against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute.) Naletilić and Martinović were sentenced respectively to 20 years and 18 years of imprisonment. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, §§ 765 and 769.

The Appeals Chamber subsequently affirmed the sentences of both Naletilić and Martinović. 
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment on Appeal, 3 May 2006, X Disposition.

In the Slobodan Milošević case before the ICTY in 2001 and 2002, the accused, a former President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, was charged with: three counts of deportation as a crime against humanity, punishable under Article 5(d) of the 1993 ICTY Statute; 
ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Kosovo), 16 October 2001, §§ 62–63, Count 1; ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Croatia), 23 October 2002, §§ 67–70, Count 14; ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Amended Indictment (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 22 November 2002, §§ 40–41, Count 16.
three counts of unlawful deportation or transfer as grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, punishable under Article 2(g) of the 1993 ICTY Statute; 
ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Croatia), 23 October 2002, §§ 67–70, Count 16; ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Amended Indictment (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 22 November 2002, §§ 40–41, Count 17.
and two counts of inhumane acts (forcible transfers) as crimes against humanity, punishable under Article 5(i) of the 1993 ICTY Statute. 
ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Kosovo), 16 October 2001, § 64, Count 2; ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Second Amended Indictment (Croatia), 23 October 2002, §§ 67–70, Count 15; ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Amended Indictment (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 22 November 2002, §§ 40–41, Count 17.

In considering evidence in support of these allegations, the Trial Chamber stated:
41. Article 2(g) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute makes unlawful deportation or transfer of a civilian a grave breach. Article 5(d) of the Statute makes deportation a crime against humanity. Article 5(i), which makes “other inhumane acts” a crime against humanity, has been interpreted as including forcible transfer.
42. Count 1 of the Kosovo Indictment charges the Accused with the offence of deportation as a crime against humanity, while Count 2 charges him with forcible transfer under other inhumane acts. Under the Croatia Indictment, Count 14 charges the Accused with deportation as a crime against humanity; Count 15 charges him with forcible transfer as an inhumane act, a crime against humanity, and Count 16 charges the Accused with unlawful deportation or transfer as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Count 16 of the Bosnia Indictment charges the Accused with deportation, a crime against humanity; Count 17 of that Indictment charges the Accused with the offence of forcible transfer as an inhumane act, a crime against humanity, and Count 18 charges him with unlawful detention or forcible transfer, a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.

(a) Law
45. Deportation has been described as “the forced displacement of persons by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, across a national border, without lawful grounds”. Forcible transfer has been described as a forced removal or displacement of people from one area to another which may take place within the same national borders.
46. The Chamber will analyse those elements of the two crimes which are relevant to the Motion. They are:
(1) cross border transfer;
(2) the involuntary nature of the movement; and
(3) the intent of the perpetrator.
(i) Cross border transfer
47. The Amici Curiae submit that deportation presumes transfer beyond state borders, whereas forcible transfer relates to displacement within a state. The Prosecution submits that deportation does not require cross border transfer, arguing that deportation is an umbrella term covering displacement both across borders and within a state.
48. An examination of the history of the law on deportation and forcible transfer facilitates an understanding of its development and its current status.
a. Nuremberg Military Tribunal
49. During World War II, Germany carried out numerous acts of deportation of civilians under occupation. A vast number of Germans were expelled from their territory and homes. In the aftermath of the war, deportation was included in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal as a crime against humanity, giving the IMT jurisdiction over acts committed against persons of the same nationality as the principal offenders. Article 6(c) of the Charter of the IMT established “deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war” as crimes against humanity. Similarly, deportation of the civilian population was included as a crime against humanity in Control Council Law No. 10 and Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles.
50. One accused, Von Schirach, was convicted of deportation as a crime against humanity for his part in the removal of tens of thousands of Jews from Vienna into the “Ghetto of the East”, ghettos in Poland.
51. In United States of America v. Milch, a Control Council Law No. 10 case, it was held:
Displacement of groups of persons from one country to another is the proper concern of international law in as far as it affects the community of nations. International law has enunciated certain conditions under which the fact of deportation of civilians from one nation to another during times of war becomes a crime…. [D]eportation of the population is criminal whenever there is no title in the deporting authority or whenever the purpose of the displacement is characterised by inhumane or illegal methods.
52. The IMT therefore dealt with deportation as a crime involving cross border transfer. It had no express jurisdiction to deal with forcible transfer, although, conceivably, that crime could have been covered in the reference to “other inhumane acts” in Article 6(c) of the Charter. The Trial Chamber has found no reference to forcible transfer in the Nuremberg Judgement.
b. Geneva Conventions
53. Following World War II, the Geneva Conventions begin to make explicit and distinct references to deportation and forcible transfer. Article 49 of the Geneva Convention IV provides:
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.
54. Then in 1977, Article 17 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, concerning violations of international humanitarian law in internal armed conflicts, deals with the prohibition of the forced movement of civilians, as follows:
(1) The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand … .
(2) Civilians shall not be compelled to leave their own territory for reasons connected with the conflict.
55. Article 17 builds on the provisions of Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV. The first paragraph covers displacements of the civilian population within the territory of a State where a conflict is taking place. The second paragraph refers to the displacement of a population (individuals and groups) across state or territory borders. It was intended that the article would cover situations where groups of civilians were subject to expulsion across the boundaries by armed forces or groups. The term “territory” refers to the whole of the territory of a country.
56. Thus, although Additional Protocol II does not deal with the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer in express terms, Article 17, paragraph 1 may be construed as referring to forcible transfer within the territory of a state, i.e., internal displacement, and paragraph 2 may be interpreted as referring to deportation outside the territory of a state, i.e., external displacement.
c. International Law Commission
57. In its 1996 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, the ILC dealt with crimes against humanity under Article 18, paragraph (g), which refers to “arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population” as a crime against humanity. The Commentary to the Code would seem to distinguish between deportation and forcible transfer:
Whereas deportation implies expulsion from the national territory, the forcible transfer of population could occur wholly within the frontiers of one and the same State.
d. Tribunal Jurisprudence
58. The jurisprudence of the Tribunal is not uniformly consistent in relation to the element of cross border movement although, as will be seen, the preponderance of case law favours the distinction based on destination.
59. In Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, the Trial Chamber held that deportation requires the displacement of persons across a national border, to be distinguished from forcible transfer, which takes place within national boundaries.
60. In Prosecutor v. Krstic, the Trial Chamber held that “both deportation and forcible transfer relate to the involuntary and unlawful evacuation of individuals from the territory in which they reside. Yet, the two are not synonymous in customary international law. Deportation presumes transfer beyond State borders, whereas forcible transfer relates to displacements within a State”.
61. In relation to the requirement that a national border must be crossed for deportation to be established, it was held in Prosecutor v. Stakic that Article 5(d) of the Statute must be read to encompass forced population displacements both across internationally recognised borders and de facto boundaries, such as constantly changing frontlines, which are not internationally recognised. Thus, the definition of deportation of persons must include expulsion “from an area in which they are lawfully present to an area under the control of another party”. The Trial Chamber, relying on the ICC Statute and the Elements of Crimes, emphasised that the first element of forcible transfer and deportation as crimes against humanity is that the victims were deported or forcibly transferred to another state or location. The Trial Chamber held:
[I]t is clear that the Statute of the International Criminal Court does not require proof of crossing an international border but only that the civilian population was displaced. This Trial Chamber is aware of the limited value of such a comparison when applied to acts that occurred prior to the establishment of the International Criminal Court. However, customary international law has long penalised forced population displacements and the fact that the Statute of the International Criminal Court has accepted the two terms ‘deportation’ and ‘forcible transfer’ in one and the same category only strengthens the view that what has in the jurisprudence been considered two separate crimes is in reality one and the same crime.
62. In Prosecutor v. Simic, the Trial Chamber held that to establish deportation under Article 5 of the Statute, the crossing of a national border must be proved. The Trial Chamber noted that the European Union recognised Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent state on 6 April 1992 and, therefore, the transfer of population across Bosnia and Herzegovina’s borders after this date satisfied the requirement of crossing a national border. The Trial Chamber also referred with approval to the definitions in the Krnojelac and Blaskic cases.
63. The Trial Chamber held that the legal values protected by deportation and forcible transfer are the “right of the victim to stay in his or her home and community and the right not to be deprived of his or her property by being forcibly displaced to another location”, and that the elements of deportation and forcible transfer are substantially the same, except for the requirement that a national border must be crossed to establish deportation.
64. In the Tribunal jurisprudence, therefore, Prosecutor v. Stakic is the only case in which transfer across national borders is not treated as a requirement of the crime of deportation.
e. Statute of the ICC
65. In the ICC Statute, the terms deportation and forcible transfer appear to be given the same meaning. Article 7(2)(d) provides:
Deportation or forcible transfer of population means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.
66. One commentator, after noting that the crime against humanity of deportation in the ICC Statute is said to apply regardless of the purpose of the deportation, takes the view that in light of the common distinction between deportation, as involving cross-border transfer, and forcible transfer, as relating to movement within a country, it is likely that the common distinction between the two crimes was intended. Two other commentators, who were involved in the preparatory work of the ICC Statute and Elements of Crimes, assert that a clear distinction between the two crimes was intended:
The fourth and fifth inhumane acts, “deportation” and “imprisonment”, were clarified so as to exclude actions permissible under international law. … “Forcible transfer of population” was added as an alternative to “deportation” so as to encompass large-scale movements within a country’s borders.
67. In the Trial Chamber’s view, if this were the intention of the drafters of the ICC Statute, it would be in line with customary international law. However, the Trial Chamber recognises that the correctness of this interpretation must be a matter of dispute, since it contradicts what appears to be the plain meaning of Article 7(2)(d).
f. Conclusions
68. Having examined the foregoing strands of jurisprudence, the Trial Chamber concludes that the distinction between deportation and forcible transfer is recognised in customary international law. Deportation relates to involuntary transfer across national borders, while forcible transfer relates to involuntary transfers within a state. Article 7(2)(d) of the ICC Statute, if it conflates the two crimes, does not reflect customary international law.
69. The Trial Chamber is persuaded by the reasoning in Prosecutor v. Simic, which is based on the premise that the values protected by both crimes are substantially the same, namely the “right of the victim to stay in his or her home and community and the right not to be deprived of his or her property by being forcibly displaced to another location”. The Appeals Chamber in Prosecutor v. Krnojelac expresses this same principle:
The prohibition against forcible displacements aims at safeguarding the right and aspiration of individuals to live in their communities and homes without outside interference. The forced character of displacement and the forced uprooting of the inhabitants of a territory entail the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator, not the destination to which these inhabitants are sent.
In terms of these values, there is no detriment to a victim if the crime of deportation is confined to transfer across borders, because if it is established that he has not been so transferred, then he is protected by the prohibition against forcible transfer, which applies to involuntary movements within national borders. In other words, the values so properly identified by the Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Simic of a right to remain in one’s home and community are protected irrespective of whether deportation only takes place if there is transfer across borders.
(ii) Involuntary Nature of the Movement
70. Another critical element of both crimes is the involuntary character of the displacement. The question arises as to what vitiates the voluntary nature of the movement.
71. The Amici Curiae submit that movements across borders based on an individual’s free will to leave are lawful. The Prosecution submits that the essential element is that the movement is involuntary in nature and the relevant persons had no real choice.
72. In Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, the Appeals Chamber held that it is the absence of genuine choice that makes displacement unlawful. Similarly, it is impossible to infer genuine choice from the fact that consent was expressed, where the circumstances deprive the consent of any value.
73. The Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Krstic relied on the definition of the term “forcibly” in the Elements of Crimes of the ICC. In Prosecutor v. Simic, the Trial Chamber referred to this definition. It was noted that the essential element is that the displacement be involuntary in nature, that “the relevant persons had no real choice”; as noted by the Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, an apparent consent induced by force or threat of force should not be considered to be real consent.
74. Whether a person would have wished to leave the area, absent circumstances of discrimination or persecution, may also be considered as indicative of a person’s will. A lack of genuine choice may be inferred from, inter alia, threatening and intimidating acts that are calculated to deprive the civilian population of exercising its free will, such as the shelling of civilian objects, the burning of civilian property, and the commission of – or the threat to commit – other crimes “calculated to terrify the population and make them flee the area with no hope of return”.
75. In Prosecutor v. Naletilic & Martinovic, the Trial Chamber noted that the jurisprudence of the Tribunal supports the proposition that the term “forcible” should not be restricted to physical coercion. In Prosecutor v. Kunarac, the Appeals Chamber held that the coercive circumstances made “true consent… not possible”.
76. The determination as to whether a transferred person had a “real choice” has to be made in the context of all the relevant circumstances and on a case by case basis.
(iii) Intent of the Perpetrator
77. The Amici Curiae submit that the forces of FRY and Serbia must be proved to have deportation as their objective and the victim to have acted as a consequence of their acts or conduct. The Prosecution, however, submits that no specific intent of the perpetrator is required for deportation to be a crime against humanity; all that is required is that the perpetrator either directly intended that the victims would leave or acted in the awareness of the substantial likelihood that this would occur as a consequence of their action. The Prosecution also submits that the forces of FRY and Serbia in fact intended that the victims leave Kosovo and thus a determination of the destination intended by the perpetrator is unnecessary.
78. The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that in relation to forcible transfer or deportation there must be evidence of an intent to transfer the victim from his home or community; it must be established that the perpetrator either directly intended that the victim would leave or that it was reasonably foreseeable that this would occur as a consequence of his action. If, as a matter of fact, the result of the removal of the victim is the crossing of a national border then the crime of deportation is committed; if there is no such crossing, the crime is forcible transfer.
79. The crimes of deportation and forcible transfer have the same elements, except in relation to destination. 
ICTY, Slobodan Milošević case, Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, 16 June 2004, §§ 41–42 and 45–79.
[emphasis in original]
In the Simić case in 2002, the principal accused was charged with crimes against humanity for carrying out persecutions (deportation or forcible transfer of non-Serb citizens from the Bosanski Šamac municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina). In its judgment in 2003, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated:
122. Trial Chambers of the Tribunal have held in several judgements that deportation is defined as the forced displacement of persons by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, across a national border, without lawful grounds. Forcible transfer has been defined as a forced removal or displacement of people from one area to another which may take place within the same national borders … The Trial Chamber agrees with these findings.
123. … [T]he Trial Chamber is satisfied that deportation and forcible transfer share the same substantial elements, apart from deportation requiring that a national border must be crossed. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment, 17 October 2003, § 122–123.

The Trial Chamber also noted that “among the legal values protected by deportation and forcible transfer are the right of the victim to stay in his or her home and community and the right not to be deprived of his or her property by being forcibly displaced to another location.” 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment, 17 October 2003, § 130.

In a majority decision, the Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of a crime against humanity for persecutions based upon deportation and forcible transfer. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment, 17 October 2003, § 1115.

In its judgment on appeal, the ICTY Appeals Chamber held:
For the purposes of a prosecutions conviction, it is not necessary to distinguish between the underlying acts of “deportation” and “forcible transfer” because the criminal responsibility of the accused is sufficiently captured by the general concept of forcible displacement. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment on Appeal, 28 November 2006, § 172.

The term “forcible displacement” was subsequently employed by the Appeals Chamber to designate acts referred to by the Trial Chamber as “forcible transfer” or “unlawful deportation”. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen stated that “the crossing of a state border is not required to establish deportation”. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment on Appeal, 28 November 2006, § 33 of Section VIIID.

In another dissenting opinion, Judge Wolfgang Schomburg stated:
There is no reason to depart from my position, as developed in prior cases, which is that the crossing of an internationally recognised state border is not an element of the crime of deportation pursuant to Article 5 (d) of the [1993 ICTY] Statute. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment on Appeal, 28 November 2006, § 1 of Section IXA.

In its judgment in the Krnojelac case in 2002, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated:
473. Deportation is clearly prohibited under international humanitarian law. While some instruments prohibit deportation as a war crime, it is also prohibited specifically as a crime against humanity, and it is enumerated as such under the [1993 ICTY] Statute. Deportation was originally prohibited as a crime against humanity in order to extend the jurisdiction of the Second World War tribunals to encompass acts committed against persons sha ring the same nationality as the principal offenders. The content of the underlying offence, however, does not differ whether perpetrated as a war crime or as a crime against humanity.
474. Deportation may be defined as the forced displacement of persons by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law … .
475. Deportation is illegal only where it is forced. “Forced” is not to be interpreted in a restrictive manner, such as being limited to physical force. It may include the “threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment”. [Krstić Trial Judgment, para. 529] The essential element is that the displacement be involuntary in nature, where the relevant persons had no real choice. Forced displacement is only illegal when it occurs without grounds permitted by international law. 
ICTY, Krnojelac case, Judgment, 15 March 2002, §§ 473–475.

The judgment of the Appeals Chamber in this case confirmed that “displacements within a state or across a national border, for reasons not permitted under international law, are crimes punishable under customary international law”. 
ICTY, Krnojelac case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 September 2003, § 222.

In his Separate Opinion, Judge Schomburg commented on the interpretation of deportation:
Adopting a grammatical/literal interpretation of the word “deportation” … the literal meaning of the word and its roots define the limits of its interpretation, deportation/expulsion is “the act or an instance of removing a person to another country; esp., the expulsion or transfer of an alien from a country”. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed, p. 450.] Thus, under Roman law, the term deportatio referred to instances where persons were dislocated from one area to another area also under the control of the Roman Empire. A cross-border requirement was consequently not envisaged. Expressed in these terms, the concept of deportation seems to mean (1) the removal of someone from the territory over which the person removing others exercises (sovereign) authority or, (2) to remove someone from the territory where the person being removed could receive the “protection” of the authority of that territory. The core aspect of deportation is twofold: (1) to take someone out of the place where he or she was lawfully staying, and (2) to remove that person from the protection of the authority concerned. 
ICTY, Krnojelac case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 September 2003, Separate Opinion of Judge Schomburg, § 13.
[emphasis in original]
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
In the Nuon case before the ECCC in 2007, the accused, a former Cambodian acting prime minister, chairman of the Democratic Kampuchea People’s Assembly and senior member of the Central and Standing Committees of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), was charged, inter alia, with “unlawful deportation or transfer” as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and with deportation and forcible transfer as crimes against humanity. 
ECCC, Nuon case, Provisional Detention Order, 19 September 2007, § 1.

The basis for these charges was the role alleged to the accused in
exercising authority and effective control over the internal security apparatus of Democratic Kampuchea (detention centres) and by directing, implementing and enforcing Party policy characterised by forcible transfers of the population, enslavement, forced labour and other inhumane acts. 
ECCC, Nuon case, Provisional Detention Order, 19 September 2007, § 2.

In the Ieng Sary case before the ECCC in 2007, the accused, a former Cambodian minister of foreign affairs and senior leader of the Central and Standing Committees of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), was charged, inter alia, with “unlawful deportation or transfer” as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
ECCC, Ieng Sary case, Provisional Detention Order, 14 November 2007, § 1.

The basis for this charge was the role alleged to the accused in
directing, encouraging, enforcing, or otherwise rendering support to CPK policy and practice which was characterised by murder, extermination, imprisonment, persecution on political grounds and other inhumane acts such as forcible transfers of the population, enslavement, and forced labour. 
ECCC, Ieng Sary case, Provisional Detention Order, 14 November 2007, § 2.

In the Khieu case before the ECCC in 2007, the accused, a former Cambodian head of State and senior leader of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK), was charged with “unlawful deportation or transfer” as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
ECCC, Khieu case, Provisional Detention Order, 19 November 2007, § 1.

The basis for this charge was the role alleged to the accused in
directing, encouraging, enforcing, or otherwise rendering support to CPK policy and practice which was characterised by murder, extermination, imprisonment, persecution on political grounds and other inhumane acts such as forcible transfers of the population, enslavement, and forced labour. 
ECCC, Khieu case, Provisional Detention Order, 19 November 2007, § 2.

Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines in 2003, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee is concerned at continuing reports of displacement of persons and evacuation of populations, including indigenous population groups, in areas of counterinsurgency operations.
The State party should take urgent measures to ensure the protection of civilians in areas affected by military operations, in accordance with its human rights obligations. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL, 1 December 2003, § 15.
[emphasis in original]
European Court of Human Rights
In the case of Akdivar and Others v. Turkey in 1996, the European Court of Human Rights held:
It thus finds it established that security forces were responsible for the burning of the applicants’ houses on 10 November 1992 and that the loss of their homes caused them to abandon the village and move elsewhere. However, it has not been established that the applicants were forcibly expelled from Kelekçi by the security forces. 
European Court of Human Rights, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, Judgment, 16 September 1996, §§ 81 and 88.

Back to top
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Individual or mass transfers and deportation 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.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 833.

Delegates also teach that “unlawful deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 776 (f).

In an appeal launched in 1983 in the context of the Iran–Iraq War, the ICRC noted: “Tens of thousands of Iranian civilians have been deported to Iraq by the Iraqi armed forces, in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” 
ICRC, Conflict between Iraq and Iran: ICRC Appeal, IRRC, No. 235, 1983, p. 221.

In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “Under the [four 1949 Geneva] Conventions, … deportations … are specifically prohibited.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § I, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.

Council of Delegates (1991)
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population against famine in situations of armed conflict in which it reminded “the authorities concerned and the armed forces under their command of their obligation to apply international humanitarian law, in particular … the prohibition on displacing civilians”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 13, § 1.

Council of Delegates (1993)
At its Birmingham Session in 1993, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the Movement, refugees and displaced persons in which it invited “the components of the Movement, in accordance with their respective mandates: a) to call upon the parties to conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to ensure that it is respected in order to avert population movements”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Birmingham Session, 29–30 October 1993, Res. 7, § 1(a).

ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated, in relation to civilians, that “forced displacements not justified by imperative reasons of security” are prohibited. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § I, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 503.

In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC, emphasizing the customary law nature of the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of most of the grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, listed “the unlawful deportation or transfer … of protected persons” as war crimes to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. It also considered that “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict” is a serious violation of international law applicable in non-international armed conflicts and a war crime. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, §§ 1(a)(vi) and 3(xiii).

Back to top
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states: “No persons shall be compelled to leave their own territory.”  
Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 7(2), IRRC, No. 282, p. 333.

Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF)
In 1992, in the context of the conflict in Rwanda, the RPF stated that “on several occasions, we condemned the use of the massive displacement of the population” carried out by governmental forces. 
RPF, Press Release, Brussels, 28 February 1992, § 4.

Note: For practice concerning the removal of civilians from the vicinity of military objectives, see Rule 24. For practice concerning the establishment of hospital and safety zones, see Rule 35. For practice concerning the evacuation of children, see Rule 135, Section C.
Quick navigation
Geneva Convention IV
Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons … and maternity cases.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 17.

Article 49, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 49, second para.

Additional Protocol II
Article 17(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 17(1). Article 17 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.53, 6 June 1977, p. 144.

ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand” constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(e)(viii).

Back to top
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
The 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement provides:
Principle 6

2. The prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement:

(b) in situations of armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

Principle 7
1. Prior to any decision requiring the displacement of persons, the authorities concerned shall ensure that all feasible alternatives are explored in order to avoid displacement altogether. Where no alternatives exist, all measures shall be taken to minimize displacement and its adverse effects. 
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, 11 February 1998, Principles 6 and 7.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(e)(viii), “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”, constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(e)(viii).

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides: “The belligerents shall endeavour to conclude agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, elderly [and] maternity cases.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 1.014.

The manual further states:
Nevertheless, the occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Evacuations may involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory only in case of material impossibility. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 5.008.

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that, with respect to non-international armed conflicts, “displacement of the population shall not be ordered unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand”. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 7.08.

Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides: “Belligerents shall endeavour to conclude local arrangements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons … and maternity cases.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 926; see also Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 735.

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in the context of siege warfare:
The opposing parties are required to try and conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.38.

The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Brazil
Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states:
1.2.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations are conducted by the Ministry of Defence, upon request by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the evacuation of non-combatants whose lives are in danger, from their host country to a safe place of destination …

3.1.2 … [A] Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation shall aim to achieve the following objectives:
a) to provide security and welfare by carrying out an evacuation to a safe place of destination;
b) to reduce to a minimum the number of citizens whose lives are at risk or who may be taken as hostages; and
c) to reduce to a minimum the number of citizens [who are present] in current or probable areas of combat.

3.4.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations … may be triggered by sudden changes in the government of the host country, changes in its political or military orientation with regard to Brazil, or hostile threats to Brazilian citizens by internal or external forces in that country.

7.4.1 In case the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not state who is to be evacuated with priority, the Joint Command shall follow this guidance:

b) the table below sets out who shall be evacuated with priority.

Main Categories
I – Brazilian citizens.
II – Non-Brazilians who are close relatives of Brazilian citizens.
III – Non-Brazilians working for the Brazilian government.
IV – Non-Brazilians who are seriously sick or wounded, or whose lives are in imminent danger.
V – Others (as indicated by the Ambassador or the Commander of the Joint Command).
Secondary Categories
A – Pregnant women.
B – Unaccompanied children (under 12 years of age).
C – The elderly (over 65 years of age).
D – Adults with children.
E – Adolescents (from 12 to 17 years of age).
F – Adults.

7.5.1 The safe place of destination is the place designated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where the evacuated persons shall be taken by the end of the Non-Combatant Evacuation. It shall preferably be situated in Brazil. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, §§ 1.2.1, 3.1.2, 3.4.1, 7.4.1(b) and 7.5.1.

The Operations Manual defines non-combatants as an “expression covering civilians and military [personnel], including non-essential military personnel, Brazilians, selected nationals of the host country and nationals of third countries who are to be evacuated in the execution of a Non-Combatant Evacuation.” 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, Glossary, Part II.

The Operations Manual also states: “According to the policy of the Ministry of Defence, the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict regulate the actions taken by the Joint Command in the defence of its personnel, property and equipment.” 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, Annex A, § 3.

Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “the Occupying Power has the following obligations: … to refrain from evacuating protected persons … of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible” to avoid such displacement. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 108; see also Part I bis, p. 107.

Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “Civilian populations must be evacuated to the non combat zones.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 67, § 242(3).

Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:
If circumstances permit, the parties to a conflict must endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons … and maternity cases. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-4, § 35.

The manual also states that in occupied territory, “permissible measures of population control include … evacuation”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 12-5, § 40.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-5, § 41.

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare:
If circumstances permit, the parties to a conflict must endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 614.6.

In its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers, the manual states:
1223. Control of Persons in Occupied Territory

2. Permissible measures of population control include:

b. evacuation. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1223.1 and 1223.2.b.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand. If they do have to be displaced, arrangements must be made, if possible, for their shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1724.

Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
IV.3.3. Total or partial evacuation of the civilian population
With respect to evacuations, additional limitations apply in occupied territory. The occupying power can decide to evacuate totally or partially a given zone if the security of the population or imperative military necessity so demand. This not only applies in situations of siege, but also in any situation which can arise in occupied territory. These evacuations should not demand displacements beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory, except if for material reasons such displacement is impossible to avoid. Persons evacuated in this manner must be transferred back to their homes as soon as the hostilities in the zone concerned cease. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 52; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 74.

Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) allows “evacuation for security reasons”, but “not outside the boundaries of the occupied territory”. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 62.

Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) provides: “It is lawful to displace or resettle civilians if it is urgently required for military reasons, such as clearing a combat zone.” 
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. “General de Brigada Pablo Duarte”, Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 10.

France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Some evacuations can be imposed for reasons of security of the population or imperative military necessity. These evacuations must always be temporary and undertaken respecting the population’s interests.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 65.

Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
A temporary evacuation of certain areas shall be permissible if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. An evacuation of persons to areas outside the bounds of the occupied territory shall be permitted only in case of emergency. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 544.

Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) allows “evacuation for security reasons”, but “not outside the boundaries of the occupied territory”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 98.

Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) provides: “It is obligatory to make an effort to evacuate citizens from military objectives to get them out of harm’s way.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 57.

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Civilians must be removed from military targets so that they will not be harmed.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 36.

The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that it is possible to undertake “total or partial evacuation of a given area of the occupied territory if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand”. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 48(8).

Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides: “A local cease-fire may be arranged for the removal from the besieged or encircled areas of the wounded and sick, … old persons and maternity cases. Evacuation can also be ordered for military reasons or for the security of the population.” 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 5.

Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “Local agreements may be concluded for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick and shipwrecked.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 7-SO, § B.

Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, states: “This Convention includes provisions for the parties to a conflict to make local agreements for the evacuation of wounded, sick, disabled and elderly people … from besieged or encircled areas”. 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 209.

Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “The occupying power may undertake the evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. VIII-5, § 5.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “Forced displacement … is only authorized if the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-7.

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “the occupier may evacuate an area if the security of the population or compelling military reasons so require”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding , Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0832.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
In principle, forced displacement of civilians (the civilian population) is prohibited. It is permitted only if the safety of the affected civilians or compelling military reasons dictate. Civilians may not be forced to leave their locality for reasons relating to internal armed conflict. Although it is permitted temporarily to evacuate civilians, it is prohibited to move them for reasons relating to race, skin colour, religion or belief, gender, birth or social status or any other such criterion. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1040.

New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that in occupied territory, “permissible measures of population control include … evacuation”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1322(2).

With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict, unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1823.

The manual refers to Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, which requires that “belligerents endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons … and maternity cases”. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 508(3).

Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
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.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.
Persons thus evacuated must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 62.b.

The manual also states that war crimes include the “unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected person”. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.a.(6).

The manual further states: “The occupying power must not detain the inhabitants of the occupied territory in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 62.a.

Philippines
The Military Directive to Commanders (1988) of the Philippines provides: “Emphasis should be placed on shelter or stay-put policy rather than on evacuation … Official orders to move large groups of civilians normally will be given where serious combat action is expected to occur between troops and hostile forces.” 
Philippines, Protection and Rehabilitation of Innocent Civilians Affected by AFP Counterinsurgency Operations, Directive to Commanders of Major Services and Area Commands, Office of the Chief of Staff, General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Ministry of National Defense, 15 July 1988, Article 3(c).

The Philippines’ AFP Standing Rules of Engagement (2005) states:
8. General Rules for the Correct Use of Force towards Mission Accomplishment

d. Commanders must be aware of, and sensitive to, the points stated in the definition of strategic implications of tactical operations. In particular, military operations shall be conducted in a manner that shall entail:

2) Minimum evacuation from homes and/or areas of food production. 
Philippines, AFP Standing Rules of Engagement, Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Headquarters, Office of the Chief of Staff, 1 December 2005, § 8(d)(2).

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Deportation of the civilian population from the occupied territory to the territory of another state shall be prohibited. Temporary evacuation of civilians deep into the occupied territory may be permitted if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand, except for cases when this is not possible. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 75.

With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 85.

Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “The occupying Power can undertake a total or partial evacuation of a given occupied area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 5.5.c.(5); see also 2.4.a.(5).

The manual adds:
Evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 5.5.c.(5).

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
The occupying power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons requires such action.
Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 5.5.c.(5); see also § 2.4.a.(5).

Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
The only circumstances under which the occupying power has the right to order removal of the civilian population is when evacuation is required to protect civilians from military attack, or when civilian safety otherwise requires this. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 6.1.3, p. 122.

Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “Belligerents shall conclude special agreements in order to evacuate the wounded, sick, infirm, elderly … and maternity cases … from besieged areas.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 33.

The manual states, however:
A total or partial evacuation of a given occupied area may be undertaken if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand … In principle, such transfers must only take place within the occupied territory. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 176.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides:
The Occupant … is permitted to undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area, but only if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so require. Except when any other course is materially impossible, such evacuation must not involve the transfer of protected persons outside the limits of occupied territory. 
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 560.

The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides:
A local cease-fire may be arranged for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of the wounded and sick, … old persons and maternity cases. Evacuations can also be ordered for military reasons or for the security of the population. 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 9, p. 34, § 3.

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on occupied territory:
11.55. The occupying power is forbidden to transfer forcibly or deport protected persons from an occupied country either to its own territory or to that of any other state … An area may be totally or partially evacuated by the occupying power if:
a. such evacuation is required either for the security of the population or for reasons of imperative military necessity; and
b. protected persons are not moved outside occupied territory, unless there is no alternative; and
c. the evacuees are returned to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area have ceased; and
d. to the greatest extent practicable:
(1) proper accommodation is provided, and
(2) movement takes place under satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and
(3) members of the same family are not separated; and
e. the protecting power is informed of transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
11.55.1. Unlawful deportation or transfer is a grave breach of the [1949 Fourth Geneva] Convention. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 11.55–11.55.1.

In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual states:
15.14. It is prohibited to order the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
5.14.1. It may be necessary to evacuate civilians temporarily from areas of danger, from encircled areas or for the better conduct of military operations. It is prohibited to move them for reasons based on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth or any similar criteria or in order to shield military targets from attack. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.14.–15.14.1.

United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Articles 17 and 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, §§ 256 and 382.

The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) refers to Articles 17 and 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, §§ 14–3 and 14-6(b).

The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) provides: “It is lawful to move or resettle civilians if it is urgently required for military reasons, such as clearing a combat zone.” 
United States, Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War, Publication No. FM 27-2, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, November 1984, p. 22.

Back to top
Argentina
Argentina’s Constitution (1994), as well as a number of decrees issued between 1974 and 1977, authorize the President, in cases where a state of emergency has been declared, to arrest and transfer persons from one part of the territory to another, unless such persons choose instead to leave the country. In some cases, however, the option to leave the country may be suspended by invoking the need to safeguard essential State interests. 
Argentina, Constitution, 1994, Article 23; Decree on the State of Emergency, 1974, Article 1; Decree on the State of Emergency, 1975, Article 1-4; Decree on the State of Emergency, 1976, Article 3; Law on the State of Emergency, 1977, Article 10.

Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including ordering the “displacement of a civilian population” in non-international armed conflicts, if “the order is not justified by the security of the civilians involved or by imperative military necessity”. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.89.

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that, in international and non-international armed conflicts, “urgent measures to remove all the civilian persons from the besieged zone” must be taken. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 15.

Burundi
Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:
“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:

5. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

8°. Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article (5)(8°).

Canada
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act. 
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).

Congo
The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Cuba
Cuba’s National Defence Act (1994), which governs civil defence activities for the protection of the civilian population, provides for the evacuation of the population to zones of safety. 
Cuba, National Defence Act, 1994, Article 116.

Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

France
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to non-international armed conflict: “Unless the security of the civilians or imperative military reasons so demand, ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict is punishable by life imprisonment.” 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-30.

Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 78(1), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 17(1), are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Netherlands
The Population Evacuation Act (1988) of the Netherlands provides that in the event of war or threat of war, a Royal Decree may be issued entitling government ministers to order the evacuation of the population in order to ensure its safety, ensure the continued functioning of society or to enable the armed forces to perform their tasks. 
Netherlands, Population Evacuation Act, 1988, Article 2(1).

New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).

Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).

Peru
Peru’s Constitution (1993) authorizes the restriction or suspension of, inter alia, freedom of movement during “states of emergency” (cases of disturbance of the peace or internal order, of disasters, or serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation), but banishment remains prohibited at all times. During “states of siege” (cases of invasion, external war, civil war or imminent danger), on the other hand, fundamental rights cannot be suspended. 
Peru, Constitution, 1993, Article 137.

Rwanda
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda states that Rwanda’s State of Emergency Decree (1959) provides that the authorities may order the evacuation of the civilian population for security reasons and fix the modalities of their evacuation. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 1.7, referring to State of Emergency Decree, 1959, Article 4.

South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in non-international armed conflicts: “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (e)(viii).

Trinidad and Tobago
Under Trinidad and Tobago’s Draft ICC Act (1999), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
Trinidad and Tobago, Draft ICC Act, 1999, Section 5(1)(a).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute. 
United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

Uruguay
Uruguay’s Constitution (1996), as amended, provides that the President of the Republic may take prompt security measures in serious and unforeseen cases of foreign attack or internal disturbance, including the transfer of persons from one point of the territory to another, unless they choose to leave the country. 
Uruguay, Constitution, 1996, as amended, Article 168(17).

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In June 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina appealed that the civilian population be displaced only if imperative military or security reasons so demanded. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Appeal by the Presidency, 7 June 1992, § 4.

Germany
In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
With the 1998 guidelines on the handling of crises related to internally displaced persons (“Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement”) by the then Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Francis Deng, the international community has a practice-oriented document, which summarizes existing standards on the protection of internally displaced persons and gives further recommendations. Although these guiding principles are not a binding instrument under international law, their acceptance by States, international organizations and NGOs has continued to grow over the past years, so that now they are virtually regarded as customary international law. 
Germany, Federal Government, Seventh Human Rights Policy Report, 17 June 2005, pp. 97–98.

Malaysia
It has been reported that during the communist insurgency in Malaysia, squatters of Chinese origin who farmed the land on the edge of the jungle were resettled to areas called “New Villages”. 
See, e.g., Dato’ J. J. Raj, Jr., The War Years and After: A Personal Account of Historical Relevance, Pelanduk Publications, Kuala Lumpur, 1995, pp. 93–99.

According to the Report on the Practice of Malaysia, this was done both for security objectives and for the protection of the squatters and has been recognized by officials as a form of displacement. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Interview with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Chapter 5.5.

Turkey
Under Turkish emergency decrees dating from 1990, the Emergency Governor can order the temporary or permanent evacuation, change of place, regrouping of villages, grazing fields and residential areas for reasons of public security. 
Turkey, Decrees No. 424 and 425, 10 May 1990.

Back to top
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1997, in his final report submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements proposed a draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers for adoption by the UN Commission on Human Rights. Article 4(3) of the draft declaration provided: “The displacement of the population or parts thereof shall not be ordered, induced or carried out unless their safety or imperative military reasons so demand.” 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, Annex II, Draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers, Article 4(3).

Back to top
European Parliament
In a resolution adopted in 1985 in response to mass transfers of the population in Ethiopia, the European Parliament invited the Commission, the Council and member States to ask Ethiopia to put a stop to the transfers for a minimum of six months in order to assess under international supervision the degree of necessity for such actions and to establish minimum humanitarian conditions for their conduct should they prove necessary. 
European Parliament, Resolution on mass transfers of population in Ethiopia and the expulsion of Médecins sans frontières, 13 December 1985, § 1.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines in 2003, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee is concerned at continuing reports of displacement of persons and evacuation of populations, including indigenous population groups, in areas of counterinsurgency operations.
The State party should take urgent measures to ensure the protection of civilians in areas affected by military operations, in accordance with its human rights obligations. 
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/79/PHL, 1 December 2003, § 15.
[emphasis in original]
Back to top
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “the occupying power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or other imperative reasons so demand”. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 834.

Council of Delegates (1991)
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population against famine in situations of armed conflict in which it reminded “the authorities concerned and the armed forces under their command of their obligation to apply international humanitarian law, in particular … the prohibition on displacing civilians unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Budapest Session, 28–30 November 1991, Res. 13, § 1.

ICRC
In 1997, in a working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC, emphasizing the customary law nature of the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of most of the grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, considered that ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or military reasons so demanded, was a serious violation of international law applicable in non-international armed conflicts and a war crime. 
ICRC, Working paper submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 14 February 1997, § 1(a)(vi) and 3(xiii).

Back to top
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states that “the displacement of the population or parts thereof shall not be ordered unless their safety or imperative security reasons so demand”. 
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University, Turku/Åbo, 30 November–2 December 1990, Article 7(1), IRRC, No. 282, p. 333.

Quick navigation
No date.
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “Although it is permitted temporarily to evacuate civilians, it is prohibited to move them for reasons relating to race, skin colour, religion or belief, gender, birth or social status or any other such criterion.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1040.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on internal armed conflict:
Recent armed conflicts have been blighted by the use of “human shields” to protect military installations from attack and by the practice known as “ethnic cleansing” when people of a certain racial origin or religious beliefs have been murdered or expelled from their homes, which have been destroyed. These practices violate the basic law of armed conflict principles of targeting, discrimination and humane treatment of those hors de combat as well as the basic human rights law principles of non-discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds and in freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. They are likely to be war crimes. Depending on the circumstances, these practices may also amount to crimes against humanity or even genocide. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.14.2.

Back to top
Peru
Peru’s Law on Internal Displacement (2004) states:
The prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement:
a) based on policies whose object or whose result is the alteration of the ethnic, religious, racial, social or political composition and apartheid and/or ethnic cleansing of the affected population. 
Peru, Law on Internal Displacement, 2004, Article 7.2.(a).

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
France
According to the Report on the Practice of France, the free return of refugees is a frequent preoccupation of French diplomacy. France often asks for this right to be guaranteed and considers a contrary attitude to be “unacceptable” and implies a deliberate policy of “ethnic cleansing”. 
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 5.5.

Germany
In 1993, the German Chancellor stated that ethnic cleansing was deeply inhumane and fell within the notion of genocide. 
Germany, Statement by the Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, Berlin, 24 May 1993, Bulletin, No. 45, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 29 May 1993, p. 488.

Tunisia
In 1992, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, Tunisia stated that it was essential to “put an end to the reprehensible practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’”. 
Tunisia, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3137, 16 November 1992, p. 66.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1992, during a debate in the UN General Assembly, the United Kingdom declared that “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia was “inhuman and illegal”. It added: “We reject as inhuman and illegal any expulsion of civilian communities from their homes in order to alter the ethnic character of the area.” 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/46/PV.89, 24 August 1992, p. 36.

In 1994, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Kingdom stated that it was undeniable that “the abhorrent practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’ … is a crime, and a most grievous one”. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3428, 23 September 1994, pp. 32–33.

United States of America
In 1992, in a report submitted pursuant to paragraph 5 of UN Security Council Resolution 771 (1992) on grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV committed in the former Yugoslavia, the United States stated:
The discrete incidents reported herein contain indications that they are part of a systematic campaign towards a single objective – the creation of an ethnically “pure” State. We have not identified “ethnic cleansing” … as a separate category of violations. Nevertheless, the rubric of ethnic cleansing may unite events that appear unconnected and may therefore prove useful in identifying persons and institutions that may be responsible for violations of established international humanitarian law. 
United States, Former Yugoslavia: Grave Breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Second Submission), annexed to Letter dated 22 September 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24583, 23 September 1992, Annex, § 4.

In 1998, in reaction to the situation in Kosovo, but also referring to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the US Congress adopted a resolution by unanimous consent stating:
Whereas “ethnic cleansing” has been carried out in the former Yugoslavia in such a consistent and systematic way that it had to be directed by the senior political leadership in Serbia, and Slobodan Milošević has held such power within Serbia that he is responsible for the conception and direction of this policy;
it is the sense of Congress that …
the United States should publicly declare that it considers that there is reason to believe that Slobodan Milošević, President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. 
United States, Congress, Resolution 105 on the Sense of Congress Regarding the Culpability of Slobodan Milošević, 17 July 1998, Congressional Record (Senate), pp. S8456–S8458.

Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
In the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated in its counter-memorial submitted to the ICJ in 1997:
1.1.3.5. Reference in a general way to ethnic cleansing cannot satisfy the obligation to prove the existence of the genocidal intent. Ethnic cleansing is loathsome unlawful policy. But if the goal of that policy is to repulse by force, including killings and torture, members of an ethnic or religious group from a certain territory, this excludes “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. Or, at least, it does not imply the existence of such intent.

1.2.1.2. In … the Application, the Applicant refers to the so-called ethnic cleansing. In para. 19 of the Application, the Applicant points out that “the nearly 2 million Muslim and Croat refugees /were/ expelled from these Serb-held territories. Victims spoke of the use of intimidation and violence to induce them to leave their homes …” None of the acts of “intimidation and violence to induce them to leave their homes” constitute acts of genocide since there is no genocidal intent. Ethnic cleansing is certainly a crime against humanity but it cannot be defined as genocide on the basis of the Genocide Convention.

1.3.5.2. Acts of expulsion of people and destruction of property are illegal according to relevant rules of international law. Such acts can be qualified as crimes against humanity, violations of the law or custom of war or as grave breaches of the Geneva Convention of 1949. (See Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991.) But they cannot be qualified as acts forbidden by the Genocide Convention.

4.16.1.4. According to the Genocide Convention, “ethnic cleansing” is not a crime of genocide. It can be qualified as a grave breach of the Geneva Convention of 1949, violation of the law or customs of war or crime against humanity. 
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of, Counter-memorial submitted to the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 23 July 1997, pp. 7–319, §§ 1.1.3.5.–4.16.1.4.

In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in 2006, Serbia and Montenegro stated:
It is also true that the parties to the conflict went to great lengths to displace the population by force and used criminal methods; … despite the fact that criminal methods were used and these acts can admittedly amount to war crimes and sometimes to crimes against humanity, in no case do they amount to genocide. 
Serbia and Montenegro, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 10 March 2006, Verbatim Record CR 2006/15, p. 42, § 203.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In various resolutions adopted between 1992 and 1994 in connection with the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council condemned the practice of “ethnic cleansing” as a violation of IHL and reaffirmed that “those that commit or order the commission of such acts will be held individually responsible in respect of such acts”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 771, 13 August 1992, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0; Res. 787, 16 November 1992, § 7, voting record: 13-0-2; Res. 819, 16 April 1993, § 7; Res. 820, 17 April 1993, § 6, voting record: 13-0-2; Res. 941, 23 September 1994, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.

In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council expressed its grave alarm at “continuing reports of widespread violations of international humanitarian law … including reports of mass killings and the continuance of the practice of ethnic cleansing”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 808, 22 February 1993, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.

In 1994, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council stated that it deplored “recent acts of violence and terror including ethnic cleansing particularly in Prijedor and Banja Luka” and reaffirmed that “the International Tribunal was established … for the purpose of investigating crimes of this sort, and trying persons accused of committing such crimes”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/14, 6 April 1994.

UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN General Assembly called upon “all States and international organizations not to recognize the consequences of the acquisition of territory by force and of the abhorrent practice of ‘ethnic cleansing’”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 46/242, 25 August 1992, § 8, voting record: 136-1-5--37.

In a resolution adopted in 1992 on “ethnic cleansing” and racial hatred, the UN General Assembly reiterated “its conviction that those who commit or order the commission of acts of ‘ethnic cleansing’ are individually responsible and should be brought to justice”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/80, 16 December 1992, § 4, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN General Assembly stated that it considered that “ethnic cleansing” was a form of genocide. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/121, 18 December 1992, preamble, voting record: 102-0-57-20.

In a resolution adopted in 1993, the UN General Assembly addressed the issue of “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia. It condemned violations of IHL:
most of which are committed in connection with “ethnic cleansing” and which include killings, torture, beatings, arbitrary searches, … disappearances, destruction of houses and other acts or threats of violence aimed at forcing individuals to leave their homes, as well as violations of human rights in connection with detention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 48/153, 20 December 1993, § 5, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1993 addressing the issue of “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly:
Condemns also the specific violations identified by the Special Rapporteur, most of which are committed in connection with ethnic cleansing by Bosnian Serbs, and which include killings, torture, beatings, arbitrary searches, rape, disappearances, destruction of houses, forced and illegal evictions, detentions and other acts or threats of violence aimed at forcing individuals to leave their homes.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/196, 23 December 1994, § 6, voting record: 150-0-14-21.

In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly expressed its outrage at “ethnic cleansing”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, §§ 2 and 15, voting record: 144-1-20-20.

UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights referred to the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing as “war criminals”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/72, 9 March 1994, § 1, adopted without a vote.

In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Condemns in the strongest terms all violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during the conflict … in particular, massive and systematic violations, including, inter alia, systematic ethnic cleansing … [and] illegal and forcible evictions and other acts of violence aimed at forcing individuals from their homes, and reaffirms that all persons who plan, commit or authorize such acts will be held personally responsible and accountable. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/71, 23 April 1996, § 1, adopted without a vote.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights condemned “ethnic cleansing” and stated that this practice had generated displacement on a massive scale. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/17, 20 August 1993, §§ 7–8.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In his final report submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in 1997, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements stated:
Acts such as ethnic cleansing, dispersal of minorities or ethnic populations from their homeland within or outside the State, and the implantation of settlers are unlawful, and engage State responsibility and the criminal responsibility of individuals. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, § 65.

The Special Rapporteur proposed a draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers for adoption by the UN Commission on Human Rights which provided:
Article 6
Practices and policies having the purpose or effect of changing the demographic composition of the region in which a national, ethnic, linguistic, or other minority or an indigenous population is residing, whether by deportation, displacement, and/or the implantation of settlers, or a combination thereof, are unlawful. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, Final report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23, 27 June 1997, Annex II, Draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers, Article 6.

UN Secretary-General
In 1993, in his comment on Article 5 of the 1993 ICTY Statute, which defines the crimes against humanity over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, the UN Secretary-General noted: “In the conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, such inhumane acts have taken the form of so-called ‘ethnic cleansing’ and widespread and systematic rape and other forms of sexual assault, including enforced prostitution.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc. S/25704, 3 May 1993, § 48.

Back to top
Council of Europe (Rapporteur)
In 1993, in a report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe stated that “ethnic cleansing” was a crime against humanity and that those committing those crimes should be searched for and brought to justice. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, Doc. 6740, 19 January 1993, § 19.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly declared “its profound consternation at the massive and flagrant violation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and at the perpetration of crimes against humanity such as … ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the deportation of entire populations”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 994, 3 February 1993, § 1.

GCC Supreme Council
In the Final Communiqué of its 13th Session in 1992, the GCC Supreme Council stated that it followed with grave concern and deep regret the degradation of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the “carrying out of the worst crimes of racial extermination”. 
GCC, Supreme Council, 13th Session, Abu Dhabi, 21–23 December 1992, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 24 December 1992 from the United Arab Emirates to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/47/845-S/25020, 30 December 1992, p. 8.

In the Final Communiqué of its 14th Session in 1993, the GCC Supreme Council noted: “The international economic sanctions imposed on the Serbs have had no noticeable effect in … halting their systematic practices of ethnic cleansing.” 
GCC, Supreme Council, 14th Session, Riyadh, 20–22 December 1993, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 29 December 1993 from the United Arab Emirates to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/49/56-S/26926, 30 December 1993, p. 6.

League of Arab States Council
In a resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted in 1992, the League of Arab States Council decided “to call upon the Serbian forces to put an immediate end to all activities aimed at changing the demographic structure of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina”. 
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5231, 13 September 1992, § 5.

Organization of the Islamic Conference
In 1992, the OIC Ministers of Foreign Affairs stigmatized “with force” massive violations of IHL in Bosnia and Herzegovina and considered that the policy of “ethnic cleansing” and forced deportation of Muslims and Croats constituted a genocide and a crime against humanity. 
OIC, Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Sixth Extraordinary Session, Res. 1/6-EX, § 5, 1–2 December 1992.

Back to top
World Conference on Human Rights
In the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 expressed “its dismay at massive violations of human rights especially … ‘ethnic cleansing’ … creating mass exodus of refugees and displaced persons”. It reiterated “the call that perpetrators of such crimes be punished and such practices immediately stopped”. 
World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14–25 June 1993, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23, 12 July 1993, § I(28).

International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
In the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants declared, inter alia, that they “refuse to accept that the civilian populations … are victims of the odious practise of ‘ethnic cleansing’”. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I (3).

Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries
The Eleventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries in 1995 reiterated that those who committed or ordered to be committed practices of “ethnic cleansing” in the former Yugoslavia were personally responsible and that “the international community should make every effort to bring them to justice”. 
Eleventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries, Cartagena, 1995, Basic Documents, p. 46.

Back to top
International Court of Justice
In its judgment on the merits in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in 2007, the ICJ stated:
The term “ethnic cleansing” has frequently been employed to refer to the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are the subject of this case; see, for example, Security Council resolution 787 (1992), para. 2; resolution 827 (1993), Preamble; and the Report with that title attached as Annex IV to the Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts (S/1994/674/Add.2) (hereinafter “Report of the Commission of Experts”). General Assembly resolution 47/121 referred in its Preamble to “the abhorrent policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’, which is a form of genocide”, as being carried on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It will be convenient at this point to consider what legal significance the expression may have. It is in practice used, by reference to a specific region or area, to mean “rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area” (S/35374 (1993), para. 55, Interim Report by the Commission of Experts). It does not appear in the Genocide Convention; indeed, a proposal during the drafting of the Convention to include in the definition “measures intended to oblige members of a group to abandon their homes in order to escape the threat of subsequent ill-treatment” was not accepted (A/C.6/234). It can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area “ethnically homogeneous”, nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is “to destroy, in whole or in part” a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. This is not to say that acts described as “ethnic cleansing” may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”, contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. As the ICTY has observed, while “there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as ‘ethnic cleansing’” (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet “[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.” (Stakić, IT-97-24-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 31 July 2003, para. 519.) In other words, whether a particular operation described as “ethnic cleansing” amounts to genocide depends on the presence or absence of acts listed in Article II of the Genocide Convention, and of the intent to destroy the group as such. In fact, in the context of the Convention, the term “ethnic cleansing” has no legal significance of its own. That said, it is clear that acts of “ethnic cleansing” may occur in parallel to acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention, and may be significant as indicative of the presence of a specific intent ( dolus specialis) inspiring those acts. 
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment, 26 February 2007, § 190.
[emphasis in original]
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Simić case in 2002, the principal accused was charged with crimes against humanity for carrying out persecutions (deportation or forcible transfer of non-Serb citizens from the Bosanski Šamac municipality in Bosnia and Herzegovina). In its judgement in 2003, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated that “deportation and forcible transfer are closely linked to the concept of ‘ethnic cleansing’”. 
ICTY, Simić case, Judgment, 17 October 2003, § 133.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.